Guide to the Surveillance of Metastriate 

Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and their Pathogens  

in the United States

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Division of Vector‐Borne Diseases 

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases 

Atlanta, GA/Ft. Collins, CO 

April 2020
1 

Table of Contents 

Contributors and Reviewers ............................................................................................................................. 3 

Intended Audience and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 3 

Public Health Importance of Metastriate Ticks ................................................................................................ 4 

Life Cycles of Metastriate Ticks ........................................................................................................................ 6 

Tick Surveillance Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 7 

Obj. 1. Classify county status for metastriate tick species of public health importance .............................. 9 

How to estimate distribution of metastriate ticks  ................................................................................... 9 

Obj. 2. Identify presence and prevalence of human pathogens in metastriate tick species of public health 

importance .................................................................................................................................................. 13 

How to estimate infection prevalence in host‐seeking ticks .................................................................. 14 

Obj. 3.  Estimate the density of host‐seeking (infected) metastriate tick species of public health 

importance .................................................................................................................................................. 16 

How to calculate the density of host‐seeking (infected) ticks with confidence intervals ...................... 17 

Obj. 4.  Document host‐seeking phenology of metastriate tick species of public health importance ...... 17 

Describing host‐seeking phenology of metastriate ticks ........................................................................ 18 

Limitations to Tick Surveillance ...................................................................................................................... 18 

Preparation for Tick Surveillance .................................................................................................................... 19 

Permission and permits .............................................................................................................................. 19 

Personal protection for persons conducting tick surveillance ................................................................... 19 

Biosecurity .................................................................................................................................................. 20 

Collection and Transport of Ticks ................................................................................................................... 20 

Methods of Tick Collection ............................................................................................................................. 21 

Sampling by dragging or flagging ................................................................................................................ 22 

Walking sampling ........................................................................................................................................ 24 

Carbon dioxide–baited tick traps ................................................................................................................ 24 

Tick collection from deer ............................................................................................................................ 25 

Tick collection from small‐ or medium‐sized mammals, and birds ............................................................ 26

Ticks found on people and their pets ......................................................................................................... 26 

Tick Identification ........................................................................................................................................... 27 

Detection of Pathogens in Metastriate Ticks .................................................................................................. 28 

Recommended tick samples and preservation for pathogen testing ........................................................ 28 

Recommended laboratory practices .......................................................................................................... 28 

Minimum criteria for acceptability of pathogen detection assay .............................................................. 29 
2 

Important considerations for Rickettsia testing ..................................................................................... 29 

Important considerations for testing for Family Anaplasmataceae ....................................................... 30 

Important considerations for Francisella tularensis testing ................................................................... 31 

Important considerations for tickborne virus testing ............................................................................. 31 

CDC Assistance in Testing for Pathogens ........................................................................................................ 32 

Further Reading .............................................................................................................................................. 34 

General Guidance for Surveillance ................................................................................................................. 41 

Additional Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 43 

Supplemental Material ................................................................................................................................... 44 

How to make a tick drag ............................................................................................................................. 44 

How to construct a tick drag‐flag ................................................................................................................ 50 

Disclaimer: Use of or reference to specific commercial products, manufacturers, companies, or trademarks 

do not constitute its endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Government, HHS, or Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Suggested citation:  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  2020.  Guide to the Surveillance of 

Metastriate Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and their Pathogens in the United States.  Division of Vector‐Borne 

Diseases, CDC. Atlanta & Ft. Collins.  [April 2020; www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance ] 
3 

Contributors and Reviewers

The following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) personnel prepared and reviewed the 

guidance:   

 William L. Nicholson, PhD, Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector‐Borne Diseases 

 Bryan N. Ayres, MS, Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector‐Borne Diseases 

 Michael L. Levin, PhD, Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector‐Borne Diseases 

 Christopher D. Paddock, MD, MSTPH, Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector‐Borne 

Diseases 

 Gilbert J. Kersh, PhD, Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector‐Borne Diseases 

 Rebecca Eisen, PhD, Bacterial Diseases Branch, Division of Vector‐Borne Diseases 

 Naomi Drexler, MPH, Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector‐Borne Diseases 

We appreciate the input of our ORISE research participant,  

 Bessie Lockwood, BS, Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector‐Borne Diseases 

We appreciate the review and input of the following stakeholders:   

 Gregory E. Glass, PhD, University of Florida 

 Abelardo C. Moncayo, PhD, Tennessee Department of Health 

 David Gaines, PhD, Virginia Department of Health  

 Charles S. Apperson, PhD, North Carolina State University 

 Claudia Ganser, PhD, University of Florida 

Intended Audience and Objectives 

This guidance is intended to provide recommendations for the collection and processing of ticks for tick 

and pathogen surveillance efforts.  There are several existing guidance documents for tick surveillance 

(listed separately in references) and these may be consulted for additional information.  Herein, we 

provide a concise guide for those who are starting tick surveillance activities or those who wish to 

standardize practices and methods in support of public health. 

There are three families of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae), with two families (Argasidae and Ixodidae) in the United 

States.  General guidance on the surveillance of soft ticks (Argasidae) is available from Manzano‐Roman et 

al. (2012).  CDC tick surveillance guidance was issued for prostriate hard ticks (Ixodes spp.) in September 

2018 (revised in April 2019; see www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/).  The guidance herein serves to expand 

surveillance guidance to the metastriate or non‐Ixodes hard tick genera (Acari: Ixodidae).  This diverse 

group of ticks may be found in a wider variety of habitats and environmental conditions.  This guidance 

defines the information desired from tick surveillance including where these ticks occur, when the 
4 

different stages are most active during the year, and which human pathogens are of greatest local 

concern.  

Public Health Importance of Metastriate 

Ticks 

Amblyomma (A. americanum and A. maculatum), Dermacentor (D. andersoni, D. occidentalis, and D. 

variabilis), and Rhipicephalus sanguineus are some of the most important metastriate ticks that bite 

humans and transmit pathogens in the United States.  Pathogens of public health concern are associated 

with each of the metastriate tick genera described above resulting in thousands of illnesses each year.  

Additional microorganisms associated with ticks are of unknown pathogenicity or have not been 

definitively isolated from humans.  In addition to these ticks, other tick species will occasionally bite 

humans but will not be considered in detail for this document.  The surveillance methods described herein 

can be applied to a wider range of metastriate ticks but may require host‐targeted collection efforts to find 

these ticks in immature stages.   

Recently, an invasive metastriate tick, Haemaphysalis longicornis, the Asian longhorned tick, was identified 

in the United States, and rapidly recognized in an expanded range. In its native habitat, as well as 

previously known areas of invasion, this tick is reported to harbor or transmit a number of human and 

animal pathogens (Heath 2016).  Haemaphysalis longicornis has not yet been identified as carrying any 

human pathogens in the United States.  Recent studies showed this vector to be an incompetent vector of 

Borrelia burgdorferi (Breuner et al. 2019) but appears to maintain and transmit Rickettsia rickettsii

efficiently in experimental settings (Stanley et al. 2020. In press).  Although H. longicornis have been found 

on a variety of large and medium‐sized mammals, it has been found to be averse to feeding on white‐

footed mice, an important reservoir for tickborne pathogens in the United States (Ronai et al. 2019).  Only 

a few human bites by H. longicornis have been documented in the United States to date, but the public 

health importance of this tick is undergoing further evaluation.  Therefore, increased surveillance for this 

tick is needed to address medical and veterinary concerns. 

Increased reporting of tickborne diseases 

There has been a steady increase in tickborne disease reporting over the last decade (Fig. 1), with 

increases in all bacterial diseases and new identification of viral tickborne diseases.   
5 

Figure 1.  Total number of tickborne disease cases reported to CDC, United States, 2004‐2017.

While the numbers of Lyme disease cases make up much of this chart, other tickborne diseases have also 

been on the rise.  Of the nearly 50,000 cases of tickborne disease reported in 2018, nearly 8,000 cases 

were due to pathogens associated with metastriate ticks (Fig. 2). 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of cases

Year of Report

Figure 2.  Metastriate‐transmitted Tickborne Diseases in the United 

States, 2004‐2018

Spotted Fever Rickettsioses Ehrlichia chaffeensis ehrlichiosis Ehrlichia ewingii

Undetermined ehrlichia/anaplasma Tularemia
6 

New areas have seen the expansion of certain species through both active and passive surveillance efforts.  

Amblyomma americanum, the lone star tick, has been shown to expand its range northward, with 

subsequent recognition of lone star tick‐associated pathogens.  The Gulf Coast tick, Amblyomma 

maculatum, has expanded well beyond its traditional range and is important as a vector of Rickettsia 

parkeri.  Passive surveillance efforts, including citizen science efforts have provided useful information on 

the occurrence of various tick species and their pathogens.  These approaches can provide a valuable 

supplement to standardized surveillance methods described here.

Life Cycles of Metastriate Ticks 

Metastriate ticks may have life cycles with feeding patterns characterized as one‐, two‐, or three‐host 

strategies.  All of the metastriate ticks that are of public health importance are three‐host ticks, whereby 

three separate hosts are utilized throughout their life cycle (Fig. 3).  Larvae hatching from eggs feed upon 

the first host, which may be large‐, medium‐, or small‐sized mammals or birds.  The engorged larvae 

detach and later molt into nymphs.  The nymphs typically feed on medium‐ to large‐sized mammals and 

detach when engorged.  They molt into adults that then attach to larger mammals.  Each tick has a range 

of animals on which they may feed; some are quite broad in their host selection, while other species feed 

on very specific hosts (Table 1).  Examining these additional hosts may enhance your ability to detect these 

species or life stages, while flagging or dragging may only pick up certain stages, often adults, of several 

species.  

Figure 3.  Motile life stages of the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum. 
7 

Table 1.  Typical hosts of metastriate ticks of public health importance. 

Tick species  Immature hosts  Adult hosts   Typical habitat 

A. americanum  Medium and large 

mammals, birds 

Medium and large 

mammals 

Wooded ecotones, mixed 

conifer‐deciduous forests 

A. maculatum  Small mammals and birds  Large mammals  Grassland, drier 

environments (xerophilic) 

D. andersoni  Small mammals, 

especially ground 

squirrels and chipmunks 

Large mammals  Chaparral, (elevations of 

4,000‐10,500 ft.) open 

shrubby grasslands, 

sagebrush 

D. occidentalis  Small mammals, 

especially rodents 

Large mammals  Open areas, grasslands 

D. variabilis  Small and medium‐sized 

mammals 

Medium and large 

mammals 

Ecotones along old field 

meadows, mixed forests; 

often along trails and 

roadways 

H. longicornis  Medium and large 

mammals; occasionally 

birds 

Medium and large 

mammals 

Open pastures, shrubby 

brush, wooded areas 

R. sanguineus  Canine species, especially 

domestic dogs; 

occasionally additional 

animals such as large 

mammals and brown rats 

Canine species, 

occasionally large 

mammals 

Kennels, dog pens, 

peridomestic habitats in SW 

USA 

Tick Surveillance Objectives 

Tick surveillance is intended to monitor changes in the distribution and abundance of ticks and to assess the 

presence and prevalence of tickborne pathogens to provide actionable, evidence‐based information on 

infection risk to clinicians, the public, and policy makers.  The following objectives will provide information to 

address when and where humans are at risk for exposure to ticks and tickborne pathogens.   

Specifically, at the spatial scale of U.S. counties, CDC aims to:  

1) classify county status as established, reported, or no data available for the following 

metastriate tick species: 

a. Amblyomma americanum (lone star tick)

b. Amblyomma maculatum (Gulf Coast tick)

c. Dermacentor andersoni (Rocky Mountain wood tick)

d. Dermacentor occidentalis (Pacific Coast tick)

e. Dermacentor variabilis (American dog tick)

f. Haemaphysalis longicornis (Asian longhorned tick)

g. Rhipicephalus sanguineus (brown dog tick)
8 

2) classify county status for presence of specific human pathogens in these ticks: present or no 

data available  

a. Ehrlichia chaffeensis 

b. Ehrlichia ewingii 

c. Rickettsia rickettsii 

d. Rickettsia parkeri 

e. Rickettsia sp. 364D 

f. Francisella tularensis 

g. Heartland virus 

h. Bourbon virus 

i. Colorado tick fever virus 

3) generate estimates for local prevalence of specific targeted pathogens in relevant life stages of the 

ticks listed above and local density of host‐seeking (infected) nymphs or adults, which then can be 

aggregated and displayed at county scale; and  

4) document host‐seeking phenology of all life stages in strategic locations across the tick’s range and 

display this information at state or regional spatial scales.  For more details on tick sampling 

methods, please see the “Tick Collection Methods” section of this document. 

Objective 1 provides the most basic information for risk assessment (i.e., is the tick known to be reported or 

established in the county of interest?).  Presence of a vector tick species does not necessarily indicate presence 

of human pathogens, and therefore, Objective 2 provides additional information about potential exposure to 

tickborne human pathogens.  While documenting the presence of a human pathogen in a county is useful, 

estimates of infection prevalence in host‐seeking ticks (the percentage of ticks tested that are infected) 

provides a better indication of the likelihood that ticks encountered by humans may be infected with the 

pathogen of interest.   

Tickborne infections in humans arise following the bite of infected ticks.  Therefore, a measure that captures the 

abundance of host‐seeking ticks, often referred to as density of host‐seeking nymphs (DON) or density of host‐

seeking adults (DOA), provides better information on the likelihood of human encounters than simple measures 

of tick presence or establishment.  That is, although human behavior affects the likelihood of human‐tick 

encounters, assuming similar human behavior across tick habitats, human‐tick encounters are likely to increase 

with increasing DON or DOA.  Measures of density require quantifying the sampling effort.  Overall, acarological 

risk measures such as pursued in Objective 3 that combine the density of host‐seeking nymphs or adults and 

local estimates of infection prevalence provide better estimates of human encounters with infected host‐

seeking ticks than simple measures of tick/pathogen presence or abundance (Mather et al. 1996, Pepin et al. 

2012, Eisen and Eisen 2016).   

Recognizing that acarological risk measures often differ by life stage, documenting when each life stage is 

actively host‐seeking helps identify when humans are at greatest risk for exposure to tick bites and tickborne 

pathogens.  Therefore, Objective 4 aims to document host‐seeking phenology (seasonal variation of host‐

seeking activity) of larval, nymphal, and adult metastriate ticks of public health importance. 
9 

Criteria for classifying county establishment status, estimating infection prevalence, densities of host‐seeking 

(infected) ticks and documenting host‐seeking phenology are summarized below.  CDC aims to collate tick 

surveillance data to make county‐level data available to the public on national‐scale maps that will be displayed 

on the CDC website, and regularly updated.  State health departments and other CDC public health partners 

may submit data through ArboNET (wwwn.cdc.gov/arbonet/).  For additional information on ArboNET 

submissions, and to download a fillable datasheet, please see ArboNET tick module.  Additional information can 

be found in subsequent sections of this document.

Obj. 1. Classify county status for metastriate tick species of public 

health importance 

o Task: Update distribution maps for metastriate tick species of public health importance 

based on county level establishment criteria.  Data will be displayed at:  

www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/

o County status classification criteria are as follows (after Dennis et al. 1998): 

 Established: > 6 ticks of a single life stage or > 1 life stage collected per county within a 

12‐month period 

 Reported: < 6 ticks of a single life stage collected per county within a 12‐month period 

 No records (note: should not be interpreted as absence of occurrence):  

o For this objective and all others, ticks should be identified to species and life stage using 

published taxonomic keys (see Tick Identification section for resources) 

o For counties reporting new records, voucher specimens supporting the status change should 

be archived in curated collections (e.g., U. S. National Tick Collection; see Resources section). 

o Because we have greater confidence in presence than absence data, after a county is classified 

as “established,” it will remain so and will not regress to “reported” or “no records” status.  

Counties classified as “reported” may progress to “established” and counties classified as “no 

records” may progress to “reported” or “established” when criteria for those classifications 

have been met.  After a county is classified as “established” surveillance efforts should focus on 

pathogen presence and prevalence and assessments of acarological risk of human exposure to 

tickborne pathogens. 

How to estimate distribution of metastriate ticks  

Where to sample 

Metastriate ticks may be found in a variety of habitats and associated with a variety of typical vertebrate 

hosts (see table 1).  Surveillance to extend the county‐level knowledge is a goal of this effort.  

Documenting distribution and monitoring for changes is desirable.  Generalized distribution maps have 

been produced by CDC, but standardized tick surveillance will generate improved maps. 
10 

Amblyomma americanum is generally distributed across 

the southeastern and south‐central United States.  The 

range of this tick is expanding and moving northward and 

westerly.  All three motile life stages may be readily 

collected by drag, flag, walking surveys, carbon dioxide 

traps, and host examination. 

Amblyomma maculatum is generally distributed in the 

southeastern United States and extends northward along 

the eastern states.  Populations have established further 

north in Oklahoma.  A similar species A. triste (which may 

in fact be the same species) exists in areas of Arizona, 

New Mexico, and Texas.  Generally, only adults are 

collected using drags or flags.  Carbon dioxide traps or 

host collections can detect immatures. 

Dermacentor andersoni is found in the Rocky Mountain 

region of the western United States.  Generally, only 

adults are collected using drags or flags.  Carbon dioxide 

traps or host collections can detect immatures. 
11 

Dermacentor occidentalis is found in 54 of California’s 58 counties and its range 

extends from Oregon into Baja California in Mexico.  Generally, only adults are 

collected using drags or flags.  Carbon dioxide traps or host collections can detect 

immatures. 

Dermacentor variabilis is widely distributed in the 

eastern United States.  A separate western range 

includes California and other far western states.  The 

adults may be collected by drag, flag, walking 

surveys, and carbon dioxide traps.  Host collections 

can detect immatures.    

Rhipicephalus sanguineus is thought to occur across the 

United States, having been distributed with its canine 

hosts.  All motile life stages can be obtained by host 

examination.  The adults may be collected from kennels 

and other dog‐associated habitats.  Adults may be 

occasionally picked up by drag or flag, but carbon 

dioxide traps provide a convenient method for the 

detection of all stages.  
12 

Haemaphysalis longicornis has been introduced into 

the United States and has been found in 97 counties 

in 12 states (as of March 2020).  Monitoring the 

ongoing recognition of this invasive species in the 

United States is a desirable goal.  As the established 

populations are parthenogenetic (asexual 

reproduction), males are not found.  Adults, 

nymphs, and larvae can occur in high numbers and 

may be collected by using drags, flags, and host 

examination.  Workers have reported that carbon 

dioxide traps are useful, but ticks must be picked 

from the traps frequently as they do not appear to 

stay long at the traps and are not caught using 

sticky tape. 

Sampling areas of interest 

Specific sampling sites should focus on areas considered to be a public health concern and might include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

 case patient properties 

 novel areas of potential human exposure to human‐biting ticks 

 counties where certain targeted species have become newly established 

 counties (or counties neighboring areas) where incidence of tickborne illnesses have changed over 

time 

 heavily used recreational areas, including those bordering on neighborhoods 

 areas where novel pathogens are suspected to be circulating 

 representative habitat types within counties where tickborne infections are prevalent 

Size of area to sample   

The density of host‐seeking nymphal (DON) or adult (DOA) ticks varies spatially and temporally.  To obtain 

a representative sample of the density of host‐seeking (infected) nymphs or adults, the sampling area 

should be expansive (spanning at least 750 m of linear transects, or 50 transects of 15 m dragged with a 

cloth measuring 1 m wide).  Because ticks can drop off from the drag or flag easily, inspecting the cloth at 
13 

regular intervals is important (typically between 10‐20 m; adults detach more readily than nymphs and 

therefore the drag or flag should be checked minimally every 10‐15 m). (Borgmann‐Winter & Allen 2020) 

When to sample 

 Sampling should be conducted during the perceived peak of nymphal or adult tick activity.  This 

information may be available from previous phenology studies conducted in the region, timing of 

onset of human tickborne disease cases, or data obtained from passive surveillance (submission of 

ticks from people or pets, etc.) 

 Sampling each site 3 or more times within the perceived peak of host‐seeking activity provides the 

most accurate density estimates, but this may not always be feasible; sampling twice improves 

precision over a single sample (Dobson 2013) 

 Sampling should NOT be conducted when it is raining, when the vegetation is wet enough to 

saturate the tick drag/flag, or when it is unseasonably cold or extremely windy.   

How many sites to sample 

Sampling numerous sites per county improves estimates of spatial variation in the density of host‐seeking 

(infected) ticks within a county.  Sampling multiple sites is strongly encouraged, particularly within 

ecologically diverse counties.  However, data will be displayed if adequate sampling is conducted for only a 

single site per county.  It may be helpful to conduct preliminary surveys at several sites before deciding 

upon sites for ongoing surveillance. 

Obj. 2. Identify presence and prevalence of human pathogens in 

metastriate tick species of public health importance 

o Task: Map the county level distribution of human pathogens in metastriate tick species of 

public health importance.  Data will be displayed at: www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/

o Data to be mapped include: 

 Shading counties where pathogens of interest have been detected in ticks collected 

from the environment or from their natural vertebrate hosts. This is a simple binary 

response (pathogen detected or not).  Pathogen detection assays must meet minimal 

assay requirements described in “Minimum Criteria for Acceptability of Pathogen 

Detection Assay.”  Samples from which potential exposure could have occurred in 

other counties will not be included (for example: ticks from people or pets are not 

acceptable unless travel outside of the county within 10 days prior to detection of the 

tick can be ruled out). Infection in ticks collected from the environment (by dragging, 
14 

flagging, walking sampling, or trapping) or infection in ticks collected from trapped 

mammals (provided their home ranges, as known, are limited enough to infer 

exposure occurred in the county of interest) are acceptable for documenting presence 

of pathogens in a county. 

 For counties where the pathogen of interest already has been detected in a tick 

species collected from the environment or from a natural vertebrate host (this 

information will be updated annually on www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/ ), 

pathogen prevalence and 95% confidence intervals can be estimated per relevant tick 

life stage and per collection site in Excel using the Pooled Infection Rate Add‐In 

(www.cdc.gov/westnile/resourcepages/mosqSurvSoft.html).  Inclusion of confidence 

intervals is recommended in addition to point estimates in order to convey the level of 

uncertainty in point estimates.  Confidence intervals can be interpreted as “there is a 

95% probability that the true infection prevalence is between [insert lower confidence 

limit] and [insert upper confidence limit].”  As sample sizes increase, the width of the 

confidence intervals decreases.  Some tick species may have very low prevalences of a 

particular pathogen (e.g., Rickettsia rickettsii in Dermacentor variabilis), and may 

require testing of hundreds of ticks to get reasonable confidence limits. More common 

pathogens can be assessed with smaller sample sizes. For example, when 10 of 50 

tested ticks are positive, infection prevalence is estimated as 20% (95% CI: 11‐33%).  

Likewise, if no ticks are infected in a sample of 25 or 50 ticks, infection prevalence 

could be as high as 13% or 7%, respectively.  Although infection prevalence can be 

calculated for smaller sample sizes, uncertainty in estimates is high; pathogen 

prevalence will not be displayed unless a minimum of 25 ticks have been tested within 

a given county for a given life stage.  This gives 80% power to detect a prevalence of 

6.2% or higher.  Infection prevalence and associated 95% confidence intervals should 

be calculated for data submitted to ArboNET.   

 Target sample sizes should be determined prior to surveillance for a specific pathogen. 

How to estimate infection prevalence in host‐seeking ticks 

In planning surveillance of pathogens in host‐seeking ticks there typically is some expected level of 

confidence in declaring that a pathogen is absent from a site or a county. The primary challenge is that, by 

chance alone, we may collect a sample of ticks that are not infected, even though the pathogen does occur 

in the population. The less common a pathogen, such as Rickettsia rickettsii, the more likely this is can 

occur.  As prevalence in ticks increases, we need to sample relatively fewer ticks to rule out this possibility.  

Statisticians refer to this issue when they discuss power calculations or minimum effective sampling. The 

needed, minimum sampling size therefore relies on the number of ticks collected (and tested), the 

prevalence of infection and the desired certainty of detecting the pathogen.  Traditionally, this certainty is 

set at 80% (4 of 5 times we want to detect the pathogen if it is present). 

The required sample size is valuable for planning resource allocations and sampling efforts.  During case 

investigation this is somewhat less critical because we have presumptive knowledge of the location(s) of 

exposure that we want to target. However, in prospective surveys for pathogens (Objective 2) the question 

is more open‐ended. Here is a thought example to illustrate the issues.  Consider a pathogen such as 
15 

Rickettsia parkeri and in the population the infection prevalence is 0.35 (35%).  This implies that the 

probability that any one tick will not be infected is 0.65 (65%).  If we collected eight ticks and tested them, 

basic statistical rules tell us (making some assumptions about statistical independence) that the chance we 

would find no infected ticks is 0.658

 = 0.032.  So, the chance that none of the ticks were infected if the 

prevalence was really 0.35 is only about 3/100 times.  Now, consider what happens when the infection 

prevalence is 0.002 (0.2%). In this case the probability a tick is not infected is 0.998 and using the same 

rules, the chance that we could find no infected ticks in a sample of eight, even if prevalence was 0.002 is 

0.9988

 = 0.984.  Thus, it is nearly certain that we would not detect the pathogen in a sample of eight ticks 

when the pathogen prevalence is low. 

This pattern leads to the use of power calculations and various software packages, such as EpiInfo 

(www.cdc.gov/epiinfo), to provide straightforward calculations to determine how large a sample needs to 

be collected to have ‘enough’ power. The issues of study design and power represent entire topics of 

research interest but an electronic calculator, and the example outlined in the above paragraph also can 

be used for quick estimates.  In these two examples, the probability of finding no infected ticks even 

though the true prevalences were 0.35 and 0.002 represent 1.0‐(power).  Thus, the power of testing 8 ticks 

when the prevalence is 0.35 is 1.0‐0.032 = 0.968 (nearly 97%) while the power of testing 8 ticks when the 

true prevalence is 0.002 is 1.0 – 0.984 = 0.016 (1.6%).  Traditionally, many groups target a power of 80% in 

their studies. In the first case, when prevalence is 35% we have too high a power (we don’t need to test 

eight ticks to detect the pathogen if the prevalence is really 0.35), while in the second example the power 

is too low. The goal is not to have exactly a power of 80% because the vagaries of sampling field specimens 

(and other causes of negative results in diagnostics) may be substantial.  Rather, the intent is to establish 

an estimate of how many samples are needed to reach a satisfactory level of certainty in our efforts and 

whether we need to sample fewer locations more intensively or spend less effort at individual sites and 

sample more locations. 

In some situations, particularly where the densities of host‐seeking ticks are low, it will not be possible to 

collect a reasonable sample size for pathogen testing within the defined 750 m2

 sampling area even when 

combining ticks collected over multiple sampling sessions.  In this case, it is recommended to collect 

additional ticks through drag sampling or flagging in the area surrounding the sampling plot.  These ticks 

should not be included in estimates of nymphal or adult densities but can be included in assessing site‐

specific estimates of pathogen prevalence. 

Pathogen detection assays should meet the minimal requirements described above (See “Minimum 

criteria for acceptability of pathogen detection assay”).  Pathogen prevalence and 95% confidence intervals 

can be estimated per tick life stage and per site in Excel using the Pooled Infection Rate Add‐In

(www.cdc.gov/westnile/resourcepages/mosqSurvSoft.html).  Inclusion of confidence intervals is 

recommended in addition to point estimates in order to convey the level of uncertainty in point estimates.  

Confidence intervals can be interpreted as “there is a 95% probability that the true infection prevalence is 

between [insert lower confidence limit] and [insert upper confidence limit].”  As sample sizes increase, the 

width of the confidence intervals decreases.  Typically testing 50 ticks per site gives reasonable confidence 

limits.  However, the number of ticks that need to be tested is dependent on how infection prevalence 

estimates will translate to public health action.  Pathogen prevalence will not be displayed unless sufficient 

numbers of ticks have been tested within a given county.  NOTE: infection prevalence and confidence 

intervals will be calculated per site upon submission of data to the ArboNET Tick Module. 
16 

Obj. 3.  Estimate the density of host‐seeking (infected) metastriate tick 

species of public health importance   

For each of the objectives listed below, when sufficient data have been submitted to ArboNET, CDC will post 

annual surveillance reports at www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/.

o Task: Map the county level density of host‐seeking nymphs or adults.   

 Data display and minimal sampling requirements include: 

 Displayed in categories based on number of host‐seeking nymphs or adults of 

individual species collected per 100 m2 or displayed as the inverse showing 

the distance covered before expected encounter with a nymph or adult of 

that species.  

 Requires at least 750 m2 drag sampled per site for density estimate; drags 

should be inspected for ticks at least every 10m to avoid loss due to drop‐off 

of ticks; sampling should be timed to coincide with the peak in nymphal or 

adult host‐seeking activity; ideally, estimates of nymphal and adult density 

should be based on at least 2‐3 visits to the site within the perceived seasonal 

peak in host‐seeking (Dobson 2013). For more information on sampling, 

please see: “Estimating the Density of Host‐seeking Ticks.” 

 Requires at least 1 site sampled per county, otherwise county will be 

displayed as “no records”. Document when sampling was attempted, even if 

unsuccessful.  

 In ecologically diverse counties, sampling at multiple sites representing the 

range in suitable habitat for the tick is recommended; different tick species 

may be found at different altitudes as well.  When multiple sites are sampled 

per county, average and range will be calculated.  

 Although timed sampling (e.g., dragging for fixed amounts of time, rather than 

fixed distances) is a valid sampling approach and used by many public health 

jurisdictions, in the interest of comparability among localities, we will only 

accept distance‐based assessments of DON/DIN or DOA/DIA for ArboNET 

submission. 

o Task: Map the county level density of host‐seeking infected nymphs or adults  

 Data display and minimal sampling requirements include: 

 Displayed in categories based on number of host‐seeking infected nymphs or 

adults collected per 100 m2 (with a 1m2

 drag) or displayed as the ticks per 

distance flagged for infected nymphs or adults.  

 Calculated by multiplying the estimated density of nymphs or adults by 

infection prevalence (both described above). 

 When multiple sites are sampled per county, average and range will be 

calculated. 

 Although timed sampling (e.g., dragging for fixed amounts of time, rather than 

fixed distances) is a valid sampling approach, in the interest of comparability 
17 

among localities, we will only accept distance‐based assessments of DOA and 

DIA for ArboNET. 

How to calculate the density of host‐seeking (infected) ticks with 

confidence intervals  

 Density of host‐seeking nymphs (DON) is estimated as the total number of nymphal ticks collected 

per total area sampled.  DON can be scaled per 100 m2

 by multiplying the total number of nymphs 

collected per sampling session by 100 m2

, then dividing the product by the total area sampled. 

 Density of host‐seeking infected nymphs (DIN) is estimated by multiplying DON by infection 

prevalence (% of ticks infected or the point estimate derived using the Pooled Infection Rate Add‐

In [www.cdc.gov/westnile/resourcepages/mosqSurvSoft.html]). Because infected ticks are not 

spatially distributed in a homogenous manner, confidence intervals can be large.  To include a 

confidence interval, DON should be multiplied by the lower infection prevalence confidence limit 

and then by the upper infection prevalence confidence limit. 

 Density of host‐seeking adults (DOA) is estimated as the total number of adult ticks collected per 

total area sampled.  DOA can be scaled per 100 m2

 by multiplying the total number of adult ticks 

collected per sampling session by 100 m2

, then dividing the product by the total area sampled. 

 Density of host‐seeking infected adults (DIA) is estimated by multiplying DOA by infection 

prevalence (% of ticks infected or the point estimate derived using the Pooled Infection Rate Add‐

In (www.cdc.gov/westnile/resourcepages/mosqSurvSoft.html). Like nymphs, adult densities can 

have large confidence intervals.  To include a confidence interval, DOA should be multiplied by the 

lower infection prevalence confidence limit and then by the upper infection prevalence confidence 

limit. 

Obj. 4.  Document host‐seeking phenology of metastriate tick species of 

public health importance 

o Task: Describe when ticks are actively host‐seeking (phenology).  

o Data display and minimal sampling requirements include: 

 Displayed as state (or neighboring state) records of tick activity by life stage.  This will 

be a categorical response (records of the tick being active for specific months of the 

year or not, or no records if phenology studies were not reported from a particular 

state or its neighboring states). 

 Based on weekly, every two weeks, or monthly non‐removal sampling over a 12‐

month period, excluding winter months too cold for tick activity in colder parts of the 

tick’s range. For more information, see “Describing Host‐Seeking Phenology of 

Metastriate Ticks.” 
18 

Describing host‐seeking phenology of metastriate ticks 

Where to Sample  

Because tick species are found in various habitats, phenology study sites should be situated in the 

appropriate habitats for the targeted species, ideally in an area where the tick is abundant in order to 

accurately assess temporal changes in density.  Sites with low density are susceptible to stochastic 

(random) variation.  Significant differences in host‐seeking phenology are not expected over short‐

distances.  Therefore, this labor‐intensive sampling should be conducted in strategic locations to identify 

regional differences in host‐seeking phenology, such as in 1‐2 sites per state. 

How to sample 

Drag sampling, flagging, or collection of ticks from hosts trapped within a fixed area provide suitable 

samples for estimating when ticks are actively host‐seeking. 

When to sample 

Sampling should be conducted at the same site, using the same standardized methods across sampling 

session.  Sites should be sampled weekly, every two weeks, or monthly to assess either the presence or 

abundance of ticks collected by life stage per visit.  For drag sampling or flagging, ticks should be returned 

to the transect from which they were collected (non‐removal sampling) to avoid artificial depletion of ticks 

over time in the study area due to intensive sampling.  

Limitations to Tick Surveillance 

 Merely documenting the presence of certain tick species within a county may be a poor indicator 

of human disease risk.  For example, D. variabilis has been reported in many counties in the 

southeastern United States, but Rickettsia rickettsii infection rates are typically low.  The limited 

contact between people and infected D. variabilis substantially reduces risk. 

 Although county estimates of the density of host‐seeking infected nymphs or adults may a better 

predictor of human disease occurrence compared with simple measures of tick presence or 

density of host‐seeking ticks, DIN/DIA and DON/DOA do not always accurately estimate risk of 

tickborne diseases in humans.  This may relate to spatial heterogeneity (differences by region) in 

where ticks are found and where people spend time outdoors, human behaviors that may increase 

or decrease risk of exposure to infected ticks, or other unknown factors. 
19 

Preparation for Tick Surveillance 

Permission and permits 

Tick surveillance is often conducted at sites that can readily be re‐visited several times within the season 

and over multiple years.  Specific areas may be chosen based on likelihood of human‐tick contact, such as 

previous case patient properties or publicly utilized areas.  Sites should contain suitable tick habitat 

(mowed areas are not always productive areas to search).  Pilot sampling might be done to identify 

suitable areas for repeated collections.  If these sites are private properties, it may be prudent to employ 

standardized permission forms to document permission to collect on owned land.  It would also be 

prudent to develop standardized permission forms for collection of specimens from owned animals (pets 

or livestock).  Working with local authorities can facilitate identification of appropriate sites and owner 

contact information.  State parks and state‐owned land may require permission from the local park 

supervisor or a permit from the appropriate state authority (Department of Conservation or Department 

of Natural Resources).  Collection of any wildlife, including invertebrates in some states, will require a 

scientific collection permit.  Depending on the state, you may be required to obtain one permit for the 

entire collecting team, or individual permits for each collector.  Please contact the appropriate authorities 

to determine the requirements for each state and submit applications early as it can take multiple weeks 

for approvals.   

Personal protection for persons conducting tick surveillance 

Use personal protective procedures when conducting tick surveillance: 

 Use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)‐registered tick repellents containing DEET, picaridin, 

IR3535, Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus (OLE), para‐menthane‐diol (PMD), or 2‐undecanone when skin 

application is desired. EPA’s helpful search tool (www.epa.gov/insect‐repellents/find‐repellent‐

right‐you) can help you find the product that best suits your needs. Always follow product 

instructions.  
20 

 Treat clothing and gear with products containing 0.5% permethrin. Permethrin can be used to 

treat boots, clothing and gear and remain protective through several washings. Application prior to 

a collection trip is conducted and the clothing allowed to dry.  Upon drying, the clothing is safe to 

handle and the treatment will last multiple launderings.  This is the method used to treat military 

uniforms and it has been shown to be effective in reducing tick bites and reducing exposure to 

pathogens (Vaughn et al. 2014).  Permethrin should not be applied to skin.

 Wear long‐sleeved shirts tucked into pants and long pants 

tucked into the socks to provide a barrier to tick access to 

skin.  Tick and chigger gaiters (e.g., Forestry Suppliers), 

especially when treated with permethrin, provide a very 

effective additional barrier when placed over the pant‐boot 

junction.  Light colored clothing facilitates detection of 

crawling ticks, but one study showed enhanced numbers of 

Ixodes ricinus on lighter clothing (Stjernberg & Berglund 

2005).  Tyvek coveralls have been used by some collectors but 

are not advised in hot weather due to chances of overheating and dehydration. 

 Inspect for ticks on your clothes and skin routinely after tick collection attempts.  If an attached 

tick is discovered remove by grasping tick with forceps close to the skin at the skin‐tick interface 

and pull tick steadily backward until removed.  

 Because various species of game animals may be seasonally harvested throughout the year, it is 

recommended that surveillance workers wear safety vests and caps in blaze orange or other bright color, 

particularly in areas where public hunting is permitted.  The bright clothing has an additional benefit in 

making it easier to locate other workers in heavily wooded areas.  

Biosecurity  

It is important to consider biosecurity when conducting tick surveillance so that inadvertent transport of 

ticks from one site to another is avoided.  This can spread infestations of tick species, especially of exotic 

ticks, and can compound your assessments of sites in both species diversity and numbers.  When site 

collection is complete, all workers should closely examine clothing and gear to remove any motile ticks.  

The cloth may be laid across a vehicle hood and a masking tape lint roller or duct tape used to remove any 

ticks from flags or drags before moving to other sites.  The roller is used repeatedly until no ticks are seen 

(this works best with larvae).  Some workers carry additional flags/drags for use at each site.  If the flag or 

drag is made to be removable (using clips or Velcro), the cloth can be removed and placed into a 1‐gallon 

sealable bag for later examination and a new cloth attached for the next collection site. 

Collection and Transport of Ticks 

Regardless of the method of collection, workers need some basic equipment.  Fine‐tipped forceps are 

suitable for collection from flags/drags, carbon dioxide traps, and hosts.  It is helpful to attach a brightly 

colored lanyard or plastic survey flagging to the forceps so that they can be located if dropped.  A short 
21 

piece of plastic tubing can be used to protect the sharp tips from becoming damaged, while retracting 

reels can be added to make the forceps readily accessible.   

Often, it may be easier to maintain live ticks for an extended field trip and then preserve them (ethanol or 

frozen) when they are transported back to the laboratory. Vials containing a base of plaster of Paris and 

capped by a latex cover work well for initial collections.  Fine‐tipped forceps are closed and push through 

the latex to make a small slit into which the collected individual ticks can be pushed.  The plaster is wetted 

with a few drops of water to maintain humidity within the vial.  Activated charcoal can be added to the 

plaster of Paris when preparing vials to provide anti‐fungal activity and serve as a color indicator of water 

having been added.  Vials may be placed into Whirl‐Pak bags containing a slightly wetted cotton ball, 

labeled by sample site, and sealed.  The vials can be stored in a cooler for the duration of a field survey.  Be 

sure to avoid placing ticks directly in contact with cold packs or ice (separate them physically by a piece of 

Styrofoam).   

If ticks are to be frozen, they can be placed into dry ice bucket, but this requires maintenance of the cold 

chain through the field survey to the laboratory.  Dropping ticks directly into ethanol after collection often 

causes the ticks to draw their legs inward and this can make morphologic features less visible for 

identification.  Dropping the ticks first into hot water or Boardman’s solution makes the ticks extend their 

legs and then the ticks can be transferred to ethanol for preservation (Cooley 1938; Boardman 1944).   

Methods of Tick Collection 

Numerous methods can be used to collect ticks; however, some are better suited than others for 

addressing specific surveillance objectives (Table 2).  For example, all of the methods described below can 

be used to demonstrate the presence of tickborne pathogens in a county of interest.  Demonstrating that 

both the vector and pathogen are present within a county provides fundamental data for assessing the risk 

of human encounters with infected ticks.  However, unlike Lyme disease, which is most commonly 

acquired through the bite of infected nymphs (Eisen & Eisen 2016), entomologic metrics have not been 

determined for many diseases transmitted by metastriate ticks, and this would be a worthy goal of 

research for other tick species.  Estimates of the density of pathogen‐infected host‐seeking nymphs or 

adults may be a predictor of the risk of human disease associated with metastriate ticks. Assessing the 

presence of the tick or pathogen, developing quantitative measures of the density of host‐seeking nymphs 

or adults, and determining the infection prevalence in the nymphs or adults are excellent first steps toward 

making this association. 
22 

Table 2. Summary of tick collection methods that are acceptable or unacceptable for each surveillance 

objective. 

Collection Method   Objective: Classify 

county status  

Objective: 

Presence/Prevalence 

of pathogens in ticks  

Objective: 

DON/DIN or 

DOA/DIA  

Objective: 

Phenology  

Dragging/Flagging   Acceptable   Acceptable   Acceptable   Acceptable  

Walking   Acceptable   Acceptable   Not Acceptable   Acceptable  

CO2 traps   Acceptable   Acceptable for 

presence, but not 

prevalence  

Not Acceptable   Not Acceptable  

Ticks collected from 

deer  

Acceptable   Acceptable for 

presence, but not 

prevalence  

Not Acceptable   Not Acceptable  

Ticks collected from 

small‐ or medium‐

sized mammals, 

birds, lizards  

Acceptable   Acceptable for 

presence, but not 

prevalence  

Not Acceptable   Acceptable  

Ticks from 

people/pets  

Acceptable, if travel 

history is accounted 

for  

Acceptable for 

presence, but not 

prevalence  

Not Acceptable   Not Acceptable  

Sampling by dragging or flagging 

Dragging and flagging are similar methods used to collect host‐seeking ticks whereby a cloth is waved 

across and through vegetation.  This method has been in use since at least 1911 and has proven to be a 

very effective method (Smith 1990, Sonenshine 1993).  It has been 

used for a variety of ixodid species (Carroll and Schmidtmann 1992, 

Falco and Fish 1992; Gladney 1978).  The terms dragging and flagging 

are used somewhat interchangeably in the scientific literature which 

can cause confusion.  For the purposes of this guidance document, 

dragging will refer to cloth being attached to a dowel and pulled along behind the operator by a cord 

attached at each end of the dowel.  A flag is attached to the end of a longer pole in the manner of a banner 

and swept in front or to the side of the operator.  A combination drag‐flag providing function of each has 

been described by Newman et al. (2019). 
23 

Both formats typically use a wool, flannel, denim, muslin, corduroy, or other sturdy white fabric with 

sufficient texture for ticks to grip.  Texture and weight of the cloth affect the ability to collect ticks (De la 

Mendonca 2018, Newman et al. 2019, Vassallo et al. 2000).  The 

cloth is usually light in color to readily detect ticks.  The size of the 

cloth has varied among workers yet is often 1m wide x 1m‐1.5m 

long in size.  A particularly good cloth is that described by Carroll & 

Schmidtmann (1992) which is a waterproof baby crib cloth with 

two layers of flannel cloth laminated to a vinyl rubber center 

sheet.  It can be pulled through briars and heavy vegetation with 

no tearing.  Flags and drags made from this material last multiple 

years of use.   

When using drags, contact between the fabric and vegetation can

be increased by sewing weights (e.g., metal washers or chains) into 

the trailing edge and/or the trailing edge may be cut into “fingers” or “strips” rather than using a solid 

cloth.  There does not appear to be any significant differences between drags utilizing strips versus the 

whole cloth (Siegel et al.  1991; Petney et al. 2018).  Modified handles or extensions may be used to 

increase maneuverability (e.g., the tick sweep, Carroll & Schmidtmann 1992, Newman et al. 2019).   

Flagging is most effective when the flag is waved or moved in a figure eight pattern just ahead of the 

operator.  The area covered by each pass can be estimated for transect purposes, or a pattern or sampling 

quadrants can be established at each site.  Flags can help protect users from tick bite or snakes as the flag 

precedes the user.  Flags have been supplemented with carbon dioxide to increase yields, but this method 

may be more complicated (Gherman et al. 2012).  

For additional details on how to make tick drags and flags, see the “How to Make Tick Drags” and “How to 

Make Tick Flags” supplemental information. The tick drag is moved horizontally across vegetation (drag) or 

wiped across vegetation in more vegetated areas.  Flags allow collection at various heights of vegetation 

and may be found to be more maneuverable than drags around high‐density scrubs and other vegetation. 

These methods of sampling provide good spatial precision for documenting the occurrence or abundance 

of ticks in a county.  

Flagging and dragging can be used to estimate abundance by either moving the cloth across a measured 

transect distance or for a measured period of time (Sonenshine 1993, Wilson 1994).  The distance method 

is usually 100 meters per transect, checking the drag by flipping it over every 10 m.  A handheld counter 

may be used to keep up with the number of 10m segments while dragging/flagging.  It has been estimated 

that some ticks may be wiped off the drag after being collected if frequent checks are not conducted 

(Borgmann‐Winter & Allen 2020).  Flags may be swept alongside the operator or waved in a figure‐eight 

pattern ahead of the worker, so it is being flipped at each wave and examined.  A search image will 

develop over time so that additional time is not needed for examination.  A defined area may be 

demarcated and sampled at each timepoint.  Some workers use ticks per person per unit time as an 

estimate of tick abundance as it serves as a surrogate for tick encounters (e.g., Gleim et al. 2014).  For both 

drags and flags, there is individual variation in walking speed, choice of path, and time spent picking ticks 

from the cloth over directional movement in the habitat. 

For the purposes of ArboNET submissions, ticks per distance unit will be used. 
24 

Flags and drags are acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: 

 Classifying county status for each tick species 

 Identifying presence and prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages) 

 Estimating the density of host‐seeking (infected) nymphs or adults 

 Documenting host‐seeking phenology 

Walking sampling 

Walking sampling entails an investigator walking at a leisurely pace (estimated to be one pace per second) 

through tick habitat and checking his/her clothing and body for crawling ticks (Carey et al. 1980, Schulze et 

al. 1986).  A flannel suit has been described for this work or white cotton coveralls may be worn to readily 

locate any walking ticks that climb onto the worker (Chapman et al. 2000).  The distance walked and the 

number of ticks encountered per distance should be recorded.  Investigators typically wear light‐colored 

clothing to more easily detect ticks on clothing.  Long sleeves and long pants, tucked into socks, are 

suggested to reduce the risk for tick bites.  This method of collection may be more accurate for assessing 

human‐tick encounters than drag sampling, flagging, or collection from hosts or carbon dioxide baited 

traps.  Walking sampling may be more relevant in areas with emergent vegetation for ticks to ascend than 

in leaf litter where tick exposures more commonly may be related to human behaviors exposing legs or 

hands/arms directly to the substrate (e.g., when playing or doing yardwork).  Walking sampling is similar in 

efficiency to flagging or dragging for adults but may result in lower yield than drag sampling or flagging for 

nymphs (Ginsberg and Ewing 1989).  This method of sampling provides good spatial precision for 

documenting the occurrence and/or abundance of ticks in a county. 

Walking sampling is acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: 

 Classifying county status for each tick species  

 Identifying presence and prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages) 

 Documenting host‐seeking phenology 

Carbon dioxide–baited tick traps 

Carbon dioxide or dry ice traps work on the premise that ticks have 

well‐developed chemo‐receptors and are attracted to carbon dioxide 

to find a host (Garcia 1962).  As carbon dioxide is 2.9 times as dense 

as air, it dissipates and disperses away from the source typically 

along the ground.  One format of the traps consists of a solid 

container to hold dry ice (a solid form of carbon dioxide) within an 

insulating material that is surrounded by a board with a border of 

sticky tape to capture ticks attracted to the carbon dioxide released as the dry ice sublimates (Wilson et al. 

1972).  A simple version can be constructed with a disposable plastic container sitting on a 1 m2

 piece of 

flannel (see photo).  The flannel is checked regularly to gather ticks or it is allowed to operate for a certain 
25 

time period and the flannel collected into a sealable bag for transport to the laboratory.  Another version 

of the trap utilizes lactic acid and calcium carbonate to generate carbon dioxide (Guedes et al. 2012); the 

catches for Amblyomma spp. were comparable to those obtained by dry ice traps.  Different tick species 

and stages display variable responses to CO2 traps and travel at different speeds to reach the traps.  These 

traps work particularly well for lone star ticks (Amblyomma americanum) (Wilson et al. 1972).  Ixodes 

scapularis are attracted to CO2 traps, but these traps appear to be less effective than drag sampling or 

flagging (Ginsberg and Ewing 1989, Falco and Fish 1992), possibly due to the speed of movement.  The CO2

traps work best on windless days and early in the morning or later in the day when there is less wind.  Dry 

ice traps more effectively captured adult A. americanum than nymphs, but efficacy did not vary by habitat.  

It has been suggested that a standardized period of 24 hours be employed (Kensinger & Allan 2011), but 

shorter time periods (2‐3 hours) can be employed for targeted assessments (Nicholson et al. 2006).  Dry ice 

traps set for Haemaphysalis longicornis should be monitored frequently as the ticks that are initially

attracted may soon move away after finding no source of a bloodmeal.  Carbon dioxide trapping is 

generally less labor‐intensive and may be used to supplement dragging or flagging collections for 

assessments of host‐seeking densities of metastriate tick species.  This method of sampling provides good 

spatial precision for documenting the occurrence or presence or prevalence of pathogens in a county. 

Carbon dioxide traps are acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: 

 Classifying county status for each tick species  

 Identifying presence and prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages) 

 Documenting host‐seeking phenology 

Tick collection from deer 

White‐tailed deer serve as important hosts for adult Amblyomma americanum, A. maculatum, and 

Haemaphysalis longicornis ticks.  Inspection of hunter‐killed deer brought into check stations is a cost‐

effective means of detecting changes in the distribution of these tick species, particularly in areas where 

the tick is emerging. This may have to be specially arranged in states that have moved to telephone or 

digital reporting.  However, owing to the home range of deer, it is spatially non‐specific and may not 

correlate well with estimates of host‐seeking tick densities obtained from drag sampling.  Additionally, A. 

americanum nymphs and adults are not active during the fall and early winter deer hunting season (adults 

are usually collected from deer from February to late winter).  Based on known H. longicornis phenology, 

this species might also be dormant during the fall/winter hunting season. 

Tick collection from deer is acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: 

 Classifying county status for each tick species  

 Identifying presence but not prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages) as 

blood from the host is likely present 
26 

Tick collection from small‐ or medium‐sized mammals, and birds 

Small‐ and medium‐sized mammals, and birds often serve as hosts of 

larval, nymphal, and adult metastriate ticks.  Trapping and inspecting 

these animals for ticks can provide useful information on the presence 

and infestation levels of ticks and presence of associated pathogens, as 

well as data on host‐seeking phenology of immature life stages, in a 

county of interest.  Spatial precision of estimates is associated with the 

home range of the target animals, with migratory birds having the 

greatest home range and providing low spatial precision in estimating 

exposure sites to ticks.  Host trapping is generally more labor‐intensive 

than other sampling, however, in areas where immatures are seldom 

collected on drags/flags, host sampling may be a very effective means of 

demonstrating establishment of certain tick populations and 

documenting host‐seeking phenology.  Trapping of animals for tick examination may require special 

collection permits from state wildlife officials. 

NOTE: Prevalence of hantaviruses in rodents has been documented in many areas across the United States 

indicating a need for personal protective equipment to prevent investigator exposure in these regions 

(Mills et al.  1995).  Personal protective equipment should consist of a back‐closure gown, latex or nitrile 

gloves, and an N95 or HEPA‐filtered respirator when handling these animals. 

Tick collection from animals is acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: 

 Classifying county status for each tick species  

 Identifying presence but not prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages) 

 Documenting host‐seeking phenology 

Ticks found on people and their pets

Pets, especially dogs, can be important sentinels for the detection of pathogen activity in the vicinity of 

humans.  Individual pets or pets coming to veterinary clinics or shelters provide convenient sites for tick 

surveillance.  Many public health entities have established citizen science programs whereby ticks are 

submitted for identification or testing.  When accompanied by appropriate training in specimen 

requirements and accurate data collection, these programs can be very informative. 

Identification of ticks collected from people or companion animals can be a useful means of assessing 

human‐ or pet‐tick encounters.  However, because people and their pets often travel varying distances, 

ticks collected from these hosts should only be included in assessments of county status when travel 

history is available and considered.  Specifically, because ticks can remain attached to a host for 7‐10 days, 

samples obtained from persons or pets who traveled outside the county of residence within 10 days of tick 

encounter should be excluded.   Free‐roaming or stray animals may provide some information on host‐tick 

interaction, but their unknown travel history render them uninformative for mapping specific occurrence. 

Testing of ticks from people is sometimes requested.  Because it provides little actionable information, CDC 

does not recommend testing ticks from people for human clinical diagnostic purposes or for making a 
27 

treatment decision.  Positive results from a tick do not necessarily mean that a person has been infected 

with that same pathogen and negative results can cause false assurance.  

Acceptable to use to address the following key surveillance objectives: 

 Classifying county status for each tick species (if travel history is considered) 

 Identifying presence but not prevalence of pathogens in ticks (all active life stages; if travel 

history is considered) 

Tick Identification 

A vital component of any tick surveillance is the accurate identification of ticks to stage and species.  This 

expertise is not always readily available at the local level, especially when first starting tick surveillance.  

Assistance may be provided by state university personnel or through workshops organized for states or 

regions. 

It is important to retain a portion of the collections from a site, season, and morphological type of ticks as 

voucher specimens.  These can be deposited into curated collections so that researchers can verify 

identifications, or corrections may be made if taxonomic classification changes in the future.  See Peterson 

(2010) for a discussion of vouchers. 

The importance of dichotomous keys to tick surveillance is paramount.  State and regional keys should be 

chosen based on the tick species found in the area. There are many good tick identification keys for 

regional tick species, but these may not be readily available.  Consult with local public health 

entomological personnel, cooperative extension service entomologists, or entomology faculty at local 

universities for assistance in tick identification or for the availability of locally relevant tick identification 

keys. CDC may be able to help determine appropriate keys. 

Molecular identification of ticks via genes for 16S rDNA, ITS, etc. may be useful, particularly on engorged or 

damaged specimens where morphologic identification is not possible.  Often a leg may be pulled from an 

unidentifiable tick and the rest of the body retained for reference using morphological features.  The 

primers 16S+1 and 16S‐1 have been used routinely for molecular tick identification in the Rickettsial 

Zoonoses Branch (Black and Piesman 1994). 

Taxonomic assistance and resources may be available from local health departments or entomology 

departments in state universities.  The CDC Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch is able to assist in identifications 

by contacting: 

Ecology and Entomology Team 

Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Email:    ticksurveillance@cdc.gov 

_____________________________________________ 

                                      
28 

Detection of Pathogens in 

Metastriate Ticks    

Recommended tick samples and preservation for pathogen testing 

Pathogen testing in unfed (flat) ticks is recommended for the following surveillance objectives: 

 Identifying presence and prevalence of pathogens 

 Calculating density of infected nymphs (DIN) and density of infected adults (DIA) 

Results from pathogen testing in fed ticks or from small mammal host tissue should generally not be used 

for surveillance data because: 1) ticks can acquire pathogens from host blood and become infected, but 

may not be able to maintain infection through the molt, 2) although infected, ticks may not be a 

competent vector of the pathogen, and 3) infection rates derived from blood‐fed ticks or from hosts is not 

representative of infection rates in host‐seeking ticks.  Pathogen testing in fed ticks or from small mammal 

host tissue is acceptable for the following surveillance objectives: 

 Documenting presence of pathogens in a county 

Prior to testing, ticks or tissue samples should be preserved in one of the following: 

 70‐95% ethanol (higher concentrations are generally better) 

 RNALaterTM (Invitrogen) or other RNA stabilization buffer 

 Frozen at ‐80°C without preservatives 

Recommended laboratory practices 

All real‐time or standard PCR testing should include no‐template controls and, if possible, negative 

extraction controls (extracts from DNA/RNA‐free water or buffer taken through the entire DNA or RNA 

extraction process alongside tick specimens). To limit the risk of contaminating field‐collected samples 

with amplicons from previously processed samples, nucleic acid extraction, PCR assay set‐up, and any work 

with amplicons (e.g., setting up sequencing reactions) should be conducted in separate work areas, ideally 

with dedicated pipets.   
29 

Minimum criteria for acceptability of pathogen detection assay 

In order to report that an individual or pool of targeted tick species is positive for Ehrlichia chaffeensis, E. 

ewingii, spotted fever group rickettsiae, tularemia bacteria, or a pathogenic tickborne virus based on the 

results of molecular testing of a nucleic acid extract, that testing must include: 

 A detection assay or assays (e.g. real‐time PCR or standard PCR) specific to the target species. To 

demonstrate that an assay is species‐specific, it should be tested against a panel comprising 

genetically‐similar species, ideally including any genetically‐similar species that might also be 

found in that particular tick species.  

OR 

 An assay or assays that detect a genus or family gene target followed by sequencing to identify the 

pathogen to species‐level or to at least to confirm or rule out a target species. If a target sequence 

is similar to homologous sequences from multiple species such that it is impossible to confirm or 

rule out the presence of the target species, testing must incorporate sequencing of at least one 

additional target.  Those amplicons that cannot be determined to species can be included as 

“<genus> spp.” in a report. 

In addition to the minimum requirements listed above, we highly recommend using a molecular testing 

scheme that has been published in a peer‐reviewed journal and includes: 

 Multiple targets for each pathogen.  

 Established limits of detection for each real‐time, conventional or nested PCR target in the 

presence of tick nucleic acid (DNA or RNA as needed for that agent). If the testing scheme includes 

a multiplex assay designed to detect multiple pathogens, the limit of detection for each pathogen 

target should also be confirmed in the presence of more abundant nucleic acid from other 

pathogens targeted by the sample assay.  

 An internal control or tick‐nucleic acid reactive assay that can be used to confirm the presence of 

amplifiable DNA or RNA in each specimen. A specimen that does not contain amplifiable nucleic 

acid should not be included in infection prevalence calculations.   

For examples and considerations of testing strategies, see Graham et al. (2018) and Fenollar & Raoult 

(2004). 

Important considerations for Rickettsia testing 

The Rickettsia genus is comprised of three major clades: the spotted fever group Rickettsiae (SFGR), the 

typhus group Rickettsiae, and the ancestral group; some authors divide these further.  All three groups 

have been reported from metastriate ticks, but only the SFGR will be considered in these guidelines.  There 

are at least 28 recognized named species within the traditional SFGR in the United States, with a number 

of candidate species identified, but not formally named.  Many of these taxa are non‐pathogenic to 

humans and exist as endosymbionts in ticks.  At least three of those associated with ticks have been 

confirmed as human pathogens in the United States; Rickettsia rickettsii, R. parkeri, and Rickettsia 364D 
30 

are the primary species to be considered.  A number of PCR assays have been published in the literature, 

and these assays vary in their sensitivity and specificity.  Targeting the specific tick species and their 

pathogens will reduce overall costs of surveillance in areas where non‐pathogens are abundant. 

Detection strategies include the use of broad coverage amplification targets followed by nucleotide 

sequencing (Portillo et al. 2017).  The 16S rRNA and 17‐kDa gene sequences lack enough variation to 

discriminate species.  Identification has more often used the gltA (citrate synthase), ompA (rickettsial 

surface protein A), and ompB (rickettsial surface protein B) genes.  The gene “D” (sca4) has also been very 

useful for identification.  Recognition of a new species may be possible but would require sequences from 

at least five genes (rrs, gltA, ompA, ompB, and sca4).  Both nested and real‐time PCR assays have been 

described for various targets.   

An adjunct or alternative approach is to utilize species‐specific PCR assays.  Both nested and real‐time 

assays have been described and used for tick testing.  The user must be cautious in their use as some 

assays have been described in the literature as species‐specific and are found in practice to amplify other 

species.  Testing against a panel of species found in an area would be prudent to verify specificity in your 

laboratory. 

 To demonstrate that an assay is specific for SFGR, it should be tested against the targeted SFGR 

species, and multiple strains of those species.  Two assays have been described in the literature to 

be broadly reactive with Rickettsia species and sensitive enough for routine use (Stenos et al. 

2005; Kato et al. 2013). 

 To demonstrate that an assay is R. rickettsii specific, it should be tested against R. rickettsii

(multiple strains if possible) and a panel including non‐target SFGR species.  One example of a 

species ‐specific assay for R. rickettsii is that described by Kato and associates (2013) or Kakumanu 

et al. (2018). 

 Prevalence of pathogenic Rickettsiae can vary greatly in the primary tick vector species.  Rickettsia

rickettsii is found in about 1% of Dermacentor variabilis or D. andersoni but can be found in as 

many as 4‐10% of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in affected areas. Rickettsia 364D is found in 

approximately 1% of D. occidentalis ticks in northern California, but 6‐7.7% in southern California.  

Rickettsia parkeri is found in up to 45% of A. maculatum ticks in parts of the eastern United States. 

Important considerations for testing for Family Anaplasmataceae

There are three species of the genus Ehrlichia found to infect humans in the United States: Ehrlichia 

chaffeensis, E. ewingii and E. muris eauclairensis.  These species, along with Anaplasma phagocytophilum

in Ixodes spp., may be targeted in tick surveillance of the Family Anaplasmataceae.  One strategy is to 

amplify DNA from the family and sequence the product to determine species.  Assays targeting the 16S 

rRNA (Li et al. 2002), citrate synthase (gltA), and heat shock genes have been useful for family‐level testing.  

Species‐specific PCR assays have been described in both nested and real‐time formats and provide another 

avenue for testing. 

 To demonstrate that an assay is broadly reactive with the family Anaplasmtaceae, it should be 

tested with a panel of species and strains for both genera targeted in surveillance.  Some assays 

will also react with other genera and the candidate genus “Neoehrlichia”, which may be 

encountered during tick surveillance. 
31 

 Sequence analysis of broadly reactive gene targets may provide the power for identification.   

Species‐specific assays have been described in the literature and have been used for tick testing.  These 

assays should be verified in your laboratory as specific for the targeted species by testing against that 

species (ideally multiple strains) and a panel of related family members.   

 Ehrlichia chaffeensis is detectable by using general Anaplasmataceae PCR assays and may be 

distinguished either by sequencing or use of a specific assay.  Ideally, any species‐specific assay 

should be tested against a panel including other ehrlichial species found in the United States to 

verify performance. 

 Ehrlichia ewingii is detectable by using general Anaplasmataceae PCR assays and may be 

distinguished either by sequencing or use of a specific assay.  Ideally, any species‐specific assay 

should be tested against a panel including other ehrlichial species found in the United States to 

verify performance. 

Important considerations for Francisella tularensis testing 

Francisella tularensis exists in two subspecies, F. t. tularensis (type A) and F. t. holarctica (type B).  The 

organism may be transmitted to humans through contact with infected animal fluids, ingestion of 

contaminated food or water, inhalation of aerosols, or through the bite of an ixodid tick (Petersen et al. 

2009).  In the United States, most tick‐transmitted cases occur in the Missouri‐Arkansas region and involve 

Amblyomma americanum and Dermacentor variabilis ticks (Eisen 2007).  A focus of local transmission was 

identified on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts (Goethert et al. 2004).  Ticks and animal tissues may be 

tested by using PCR assays. Many ticks, particularly Dermacentor species have been found to harbor 

endosymbionts that can amplify using certain PCR assays (Kugeler et al. 2005).  Assay performance 

regarding specificity should be carefully considered to avoid misinterpretation. 

 Francisella tularensis is listed as a tier 1 select agent and all live organism work must be conducted 

under the rules and regulations of select agents.   

 To demonstrate that an assay is F. tularensis‐specific, it should be tested using specific F. tularensis

DNA and Francisella‐like endosymbiont DNA controls.   

Important considerations for tickborne virus testing 

Heartland virus (HRTV) is a single‐stranded RNA virus in the genus Phlebovirus, Family Phenuiviridae, for 

which A. americanum serves as the vector (Savage et al. 2013; Savage et al. 2016).  The average infection 

rate of pooled nymphs has been estimated at 1 per 559 ticks, while the estimated infection rate of adults is 

estimated at 1/885.  Raccoons and white‐tailed deer may play important roles in the maintenance of this 

virus in nature (Riemersma & Komar 2015).  Ticks and animals may be tested using RT‐PCR assays 

described by McMullan et al. (2012) or Savage et al. (2013). 

Bourbon virus (BRBV) is a single‐stranded RNA virus in the genus Thogotovirus, Family Orthomyxoviridae, 

for which A. americanum may serve as the vector (Savage et al. 2017).  The estimated infection rates of 

nymphs and adults are 1/3125 and as high as 1/3226, respectively.  Raccoons and white‐tailed deer may 
32 

serve as amplifier hosts in nature (Jackson et al. 2019).  Ticks and animals may be tested using a RT‐PCR 

assay described by Savage et al. (2017). 

Colorado tick fever virus (CTFV) is a double‐stranded RNA virus in the genus Coltivirus, Family Reoviridae.  

The tick vector in the United States is D. andersoni.   The virus persists in nature through a tick‐small 

mammal transmission cycle and humans serve as a dead‐end host.  CTFV variants found in black‐tailed 

jackrabbits have been found to infect humans.  Detection of the virus may be accomplished by using RT‐

PCR assays, such as that described by Lambert et al. (2007).   

Metastriate tickborne virus detection considerations include: 

 Sample preservation, nucleic acid extraction, and nucleic acid storage requirements for RNA are 

generally more stringent than those for bacterial or protozoan DNA. If you want to include 

Heartland or Bourbon virus testing in your tick surveillance plan, you may need to collect and 

store one set of ticks for DNA testing and a second set for RNA testing. Alternatively, you may 

bisect the tick for separate extractions.  It is also possible to optimize your sample preservation, 

nucleic acid extraction, and nucleic acid storage protocols to allow for both DNA and RNA testing. 

In this case, it is important to ensure that your preservation, extraction, and storage procedures do 

not compromise assay sensitivity to any of your RNA or DNA pathogen targets. 

 PCR‐based assays designed to detect or identify these viruses must incorporate a reverse 

transcription step. 

 Because of the low infection rates demonstrated thus far in nature, ticks may be pooled for 

detection and cost‐efficiency of testing. 

CDC Assistance in Testing for Pathogens 

In support of metastriate tick surveillance efforts, CDC has limited resources available to support pathogen 

detection in ticks submitted from public health partners.  Recommended assay protocols, positive DNA 

controls, and technical consultation are available.  Training for laboratorians in tick testing will be planned 

on an ad hoc basis.  Limited testing may be available in the CDC laboratories, but may be limited to sites 

associated with human cases, or in areas of vector or pathogen emergence.  Contact the Tick Surveillance 

Email (ticksurveillance@cdc.gov)  to discuss assistance in pathogen testing.  Samples will not be accepted 

for testing from the general public. 

In counties where the pathogen of interest has never been identified 

In counties where E. chaffeensis, E. ewingii, R. rickettsii, R. parkeri, or Rickettsia 364D have not been 

previously identified in ticks or their hosts (consult ArboNET database for current status), CDC may be able 

to assist in the testing of samples submitted by collaborating public health partners for presence of 

pathogens.  Francisella tularensis and tickborne virus testing may not be available but interested agencies 

may contact the Tick Surveillance Centralized Email (ticksurveillance@cdc.gov).  The samples of interest for 

rickettsial testing include: 
33 

 Host‐seeking nymphs (collected from vegetation, walking samples or tick traps); pathogen 

prevalence will be estimated if sample size is >25 individuals per site per county. 

 Host‐seeking adults (collected from vegetation, walking samples or tick traps); pathogen 

prevalence will be estimated if sample size is >25 individuals per county. 

 Ticks collected from hosts; ticks will be tested for pathogen presence only, but prevalence will not 

be estimated.  Blood‐fed adults will not be tested due to assay not being optimized for that 

purpose. 

In counties where the pathogen of interest has been identified 

In counties where E. chaffeensis, E. ewingii, R. rickettsii, R. parkeri, or Rickettsia 364D have been identified 

previously in ticks or their hosts (please consult ArboNET database for current status), CDC may be able to 

assist in testing the following samples submitted by collaborating public health partners for prevalence of 

pathogens: 

 Host‐seeking nymphs (collected from vegetation, walking samples or tick traps) where sufficient 

individuals are submitted per site per county.  

 Host‐seeking adults (collected from vegetation, walking samples or tick traps) where >25 

individuals are submitted per site per county.  

 In areas where drag sampling/flagging was conducted to assess DIN or DIA, we may test ticks from 

low density sites, even if the total sample size is less than 25 individuals.  Collection of additional 

ticks from area surrounding the density sampling site should be attempted, but in some cases, 

collection of 25 individuals will not be feasible. 
34 

Further Reading 

Black, W. C. IV, and J. Piesman.  1994.  Phylogeny of hard‐ and soft‐tick taxa (Acari: Ixodida) based on 16S 

rDNA sequences.  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 91: 10034‐10038. 

Boardman, E. T.  1944.  Methods for collecting ticks for study and delineation.  J. Parasitol. 30: 57‐59. 

Borgmann‐Winter, B., and D. Allen.  2020.  How the distance between drag‐cloth checks affects the 

estimate of adult and nymphal Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) density.  J. Med. Entomol. (In press: 

doi:10.1093/jme/tjz179) 

Breuner, N. E., S. L. Ford, A. Hojgaard, L. M. Osikowicz, C. M. Parise, M. F. Rosales Rizzo, Y. Bai, M. L. 

Levin, R. J. Eisen, and L. Eisen.  2019.  Failure of the Asian longhorned tickm Haemaphysalis longicornis, to 

serve as an experimental vector of the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto.  Ticks 

Tick‐Borne Dis.  (in press) 

Carey, A. B., W. L. Krinsky, and A. J. Main.  1980.  Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) and associated ixodid 

ticks in southcentral Connecticut, USA.  J. Med. Entomol. 17: 89‐99.

Carr, A. L., R. M. Roe, C. Arellano, D. E. Sonenshine, C. Schal, and C. S. Apperson.  2013.  Responses of 

Amblyomma americanum and Dermacentor variabilis to odorants that attract haematophagous insects.  

Med. Vet. Entomol. 27: 86‐95. 

Carroll, J. F.  2011.  An increasing presence: the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (Linnaeus) (Acari: 

Ixodidae) in Maryland.  Maryland Entomol. 5: 66‐76. 

Carroll, J. F., and E. T. Schmidtmann.  1992.  Tick sweep: modification of the tick‐drag‐flag method for 

sampling nymphs of the deer tick (Acari: Ixodidae).  J. Med. Entomol. 29: 352‐355.

Chapman, E. S., and T. E. Siegle.  2000.  A novel method for tick retrieval reveals northern migration of

Amblyomma americanum into Pike County, IL, USA.  Intl. J. Acarol. 26: 391‐393.

Clow, K. M., R. Finer, G. Lumsden, and C. M. Jardine.  2018.  Assessing the repeatability of tick dragging as 

a method for Ixodes scapularis surveillance.  Vector‐Borne & Zoonotic Dis. 18: 628‐631. 

Cooley, R. A. 1938.  The genera Dermacentor and Otocenter (Ixodidae) in the United States with studies in 

variation.  Nat. Inst. Hlth. Bull.  171: 1‐89. 

Daniels, T. J., R. C. Falco, and D. Fish.  2000.  Estimating population size and drag sampling efficiency for 

the blacklegged tick (Acari: Ixodidae).  J. Med. Entomol. 37: 357‐363.

Dantas‐Torres, F., R. P. Lia, G. Capelli, and D. Otranto.  2013.  Efficiency of flagging and dragging for tick 

collection.  Exp. Appl. Acarol. 61: 119‐127. 

De Jesus, C. E., C. Ganser, W. H. Kessler, Z. S. White, C. R. Bhosale, G. E. Glass, and S. M. Wisely.  2019.  

Insects 10: 297.  [doi:10.3390/insects10090297] 

De la Mendonca, P.  2018.  Impact of flag texture on tick sampling efficiency.  J. Arthropod‐Borne Dis. 12: 

421‐425. 
35 

Dennis, D. T., T. S. Nekomoto, J. C. Victor, W. S. Paul, and J. Piesman. 1998. Reported distribution of 

Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae) in the United States. J. Med. Entomol. 35: 629‐638. 

Dobson, A. D. M.  2013. Ticks in the wrong boxes: assessing error in blanket‐drag studies due to occasional 

sampling. Parasites & Vectors 6: 344. [doi:10.1186/1756‐3305‐6‐344.] 

Eisen, L.  2007.  A call for renewed research on tick‐borne Francisella tularensis in the Arkansas‐Missouri 

primary national focus of tularemia in humans.  J. Med. Entomol. 44: 389‐397. 

Eisen, L., L. A. Ibarra‐Juarez, R. J. Eisen, and J. Piesman.  2008.  Indicators for elevated risk of human 

exposure to host‐seeking adults of the Rocky Mountain wood tick (Dermacentor andersoni) in Colorado.  J. 

Vector Ecol. 33: 117‐128. 

Eisen, R. J., J. Mun, L. Eisen, and R. S. Lane.  2004.  Life stage‐related differences in density of questing 

ticks and infection with Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato within a single cohort of Ixodes pacificus (Acari: 

Ixodidae).  J. Med. Entomol. 41: 768‐773. 

Eisen R. J., P. S. Mead, A. M. Meyer, L. E. Pfaff, K. K. Bradley, and L. Eisen. 2008.  Ecoepidemiology of 

tularemia in the southcentral United States. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 78: 586‐594.

Eisen, L., and R. J. Eisen. 2016. Critical evaluation of the linkage between tick‐based risk measures and the 

occurrence of Lyme disease cases. J. Med. Entomol. 53: 1050‐1062. 

Eisen, R. J., K. J. Kugeler, L. Eisen, C. B. Beard, and C. D. Paddock. 2017. Tick‐Borne zoonoses in the United 

States: Persistent and emerging threats to human health. ILAR J.: 1‐17. 

Falco, R. C., and D. Fish. 1992. A comparison of methods for sampling the deer tick, Ixodes dammini, in a 

Lyme disease endemic area. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 14: 165‐173. 

Fenollar, F., and D. Raoult.  2004.  Molecular genetic methods for the diagnosis of fastidious 

microorganisms.  APMIS 112: 785‐807. 

Fournier, P. E., J. S. Dumler, G. Greub, J. Zhang, Y. Wu, and D. Raoult.  2003.  Gene sequence‐based 

criteria for identification of new Rickettsia isolates and description of Rickettsia heilongjiangensis sp. nov.  

J. Clin. Microbiol. 41: 5456‐5465. 

Garcia, R.  1962.  Carbon dioxide as an attractant for certain ticks (Acarina: Argasidae and Ixodidae).  Ann. 

Entomol. Soc. Am. 55: 605.

Garcia, R.  1964.  Collection of Dermacentor andersoni (Stiles) with carbon dioxide and its application in 

studies of Colorado tick fever virus.  Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 14: 1090‐1093. 

Gherman, C. M., A. D. Mihalca, M. O. Dumitrache, A. Gyorke, I. Oroian, M. Sandor, and V. Cozma.  2012.  

CO2 flagging—an improved method for the collection of questing ticks.  Parasites & Vectors 5: 125.  [7 pp.]

Ginsberg, H. S., and C. P. Ewing. 1989. Comparison of flagging, walking, trapping, and collecting from hosts 

as sampling methods for northern deer ticks, Ixodes dammini, and lone‐star ticks, Amblyomma 

americanum (Acari:Ixodidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 7: 313‐322. 

Glass, G. E., C. Ganser, S. M. Wisely, and W. H. Kessler.  2019.  Standardized ixodid tick survey in mainland 

Florida.  Insects 10: 225.  [doi:10.3390/insects10080235] 
36 

Gleim, E. R., L. M. Conner, R. D. Berghaus, M. L. Levin, G. E. Zemtsova, and M. J. Yabsley.  2014.  The 

phenology of ticks and the effects of long‐term prescribed burning on tick population dynamics in 

southwestern Georgia and northwestern Florida.  Plos One 9: e112174.  

[doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112174] 

Goethert, H. K., I. Shani, and S. R. Telford III.  2004.  Genotypic diversity of Francisella tularensis infecting 

Dermacentor variabilis ticks on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.  J. Clin. Microbiol. 42: 4968‐4973. 

Graham, C. B., S. E. Maes, A. Hojgaard, A. C. Fleshman, S. W. Sheldon, and R. J. Eisen. 2018. A molecular 

algorithm to detect and differentiate human pathogens infecting Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes pacificus

(Acari: Ixodidae). Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 9: 390‐403.  

Gray. J. S., and G. Lohan.  1982.  The development of a sampling method for the tick Ixodes ricinus and its 

use in a redwater fever area.  Ann. Appl. Biol. 101: 421‐427.

Guedes, E., M. C. de Azevedo Prata, E. S. dos Reis, P. H. Duarte Cancado, and R. C. Leite.  2012.  

Comparative efficacy of two models of CO2 traps in the collection of free‐living stages of ixodides.  

Parasitol. Res. 111: 2325‐2328. 

Hair, J. A., A. L. Hoch, R. W. Barker, and P. J. Semtner.  1972.  A method of collecting nymphal and adult 

lone star ticks, Amblyomma americanum (L.) (Acarina: Ixodidae), from woodlots.  J. Med. Entomol. 9: 153‐

155.

Heath, A.  2016.  Biology, ecology, and distribution of the tick Haemaphysalis longicornis Neumann 

(Acari: Ixodidae) in New Zealand.  N. Z. Vet. J. 64: 10‐20.

Jackson, K. C., T. Gidlewski, J. J. Root, A. M. Bosco‐Lauth, R. R. Lash, J. R. Harmon, A. C. Brault, N. A. 

Panella, W. L. Nicholson, and N. Komar.  2019.  Bourbon virus in wild and domestic animals, Missouri, 

USA, 2012‐2013.  Emerging Infect. Dis. 25: 1752‐1753.  

Jado, I., R. Escudero, H. Gil, M. I. Jimenez‐Alonso, R. Sousa, A. L. Garcia‐Perez, M. Rodriguez‐Vargas, B. 

Lobo, and P. Anda.  2006.  Molecular method for identification of Rickettsia species in clinical and 

environmental samples.  J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 4572‐4576. 

Jordan, R. A., and A. Egizi.  2019.  The growing importance of lone star ticks in a Lyme disease endemic 

county: passive tick surveillance in Monmouth County, NJ, 2006‐2016.  PLoS ONE 14: e0211778.   [18 pp.] 

[https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211778]

Kaizer, A. M., S. A. Fore, H‐J. Kim, and E. C. York.  2015.  Modeling the biotic and abiotic factors that 

describe the number of active off‐host Amblyomma americanum larvae.  J. Vector Ecol. 40: 1‐10. 

Kakumanu, M.L., L. Ponnusamy, H. Sutton, S. R. Meshnick, W. L. Nicholson, and C. S. Apperson.  2018.  

Prevalence of Rickettsia species (Rickettsiales: Rickettsiaceae) in Dermacentor variabilis ticks (Acari: 

Ixodidae) in North Carolina.  J. Med. Entomol. 55:1 284‐1291. [doi: 10.1093/jme/tjy074.] 

Kato, C. Y., I. H. Chung, L. K. Robinson, A. L. Austin, G. A. Dasch, and R. F. Massung.  2013.  Assessment of 

real‐time PCR assay for detection of Rickettsia spp. and Rickettsia rickettsii in banked clinical samples.  J. 

Clin. Microbiol. 51: 314‐317. 

Kensinger, B. J., and B. F. Allan.  2011.  Efficacy of dry ice‐baited traps for sampling Amblyomma

americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) varies with life stage but not habitat.  J. Med. Entomol. 48 (3): 708‐711. 
37 

Kinzer, D. R., S. M. Presley, and J. A. Hair.  1990.  Comparative efficiency of flagging and carbon dioxide‐

baited sticky traps for collecting the lone star tick, Amblyomma americanum (Acarina: Ixodidae).  J. Med. 

Entomol. 27: 750‐755. 

Kugeler, K. J., N. Gurfield, J. G. Creek, K. S. Mahoney, J. L. Versage, and J. M. Petersen.  2005.  

Discrimination between Francisella tularensis and Francisella‐like endosymbionts when screening ticks by 

PCR.  Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71: 7594‐7597.

Lambert, A. J., O. Kosoy, J. O. Velez, B. J. Russell, and R. S. Lanciotti.  2007.  Detection of Colorado tick 

fever viral RNA in acute human serum samples by a quantitative real‐time RT‐PCR assay.  J. Virol. Meth. 

140: 43‐48.

Lang, J. T., and J. P. Dougherty.  1979.  PACAP medical technicians’ guide to arthropod vector surveillance.  

Report no. 79‐34.  U. S. Air Force Medical Service, USAF Occupational and Environmental Health 

Laboratory: San Francisco.  44 pp. 

Li, X., and J. E. Dunley.  1998.  Optimal sampling and spatial distribution of Ixodes pacificus, Dermacentor 

occidentalis, and Dermacentor variabilis ticks (Acari: Ixodidae).  Exp. Appl. Acarol. 22: 233‐248. 

Li J.S., F. Chu, A. Reilly, and G. Winslow.  2002.  Antibodies highly effective in SCID mice during infection by 

the intracellular bacterium Ehrlichia chaffeensis are of picomolar affinity and exhibit preferential epitope 

and isotype utilization.  J. Immunology, 169:1419‐1425. 

Luce‐Fedrow, A., K. Mullins, A. P. Kostik, H. K. St. John, J. Jiang, and A. L. Richards.  2015.  Strategies for 

detecting rickettsiae and diagnosing rickettsial diseases.  Future Microbiol. 10: 537‐564.  

[doi:10.2217/fmb.14.141] 

Lydecker, H. W., P. B. Banks, and D. F. Hochuli.  2019.  Counting ticks (Acari: Ixodida) on hosts is complex: 

a review and comparison of methods.  J. Med. Entomol. 56: 1527‐1533.   

Manzano‐Roman, R., V. Diaz‐Martin, J. de la Fuente, and R. Perez‐Sanchez.  2012.  Soft ticks as pathogen 

vectors: distribution, Surveillance, and Control, pp. 125‐162.  In:  M. M. Shah, ed.  Parasitology.  InTech: 

Rijeka, Croatia.  [www.intechopen.com]. 

Mather, T. N., M. C. Nicholson, E. F. Donnelly, and B. T. Matyas. 1996. Entomologic index for human risk 

of Lyme disease. Am. J. Epidemiol. 144: 1066‐1069. 

Mays, S. E., A. E. Houston, and R. T. Trout‐Fryxell.  2016.  Comparison of novel and conventional methods 

of trapping ixodid ticks in the southeastern United States.  Med. Vet. Entomol. 30: 123‐134. 

McMullan, L. K., S. M. Folk, A. R. Kelly, A. MacNeil, C. Goldsmith, M. Metcalfe, B. Batten, C. Albarino, S. 

Zaki, P. Rollin, W. L. Nicholson, and S. T. Nichol.  2012.  A new phlebovirus associated with severe febrile 

illness in Missouri.  New Engl. J. Med. 367 (9): 834‐841. [supplemental appendix available on 

www.nejm.com] 

Medlock, J., T. Balenghien, B. Alten, V. Versteirt, and F. Schaffner.  2018.  Field sampling methods for 

mosquitoes, sandflies, biting midges, and ticks.  VectorNet Project 2014‐2018.  VectorNet External 

Scientific Report.  EFSA Supporting Publ. 2018‐EN‐1435.  47 pp.  [doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN‐1435] 

[www.efsa.europe.eu/publications] 
38 

Michelet, L., S. Delannoy, E. Devillers, G. Umhang, A. Aspan, M. Juremalm, J. Chirico, F. J. van der Wal, H. 

Sprong, T. P. Boye Pihl, K. Klitgaard, R. Bodker, P. Fach, and S. Moutailler.  2014.  High‐throughput 

screening of tick‐borne pathogens in Europe.  Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 4: 103. [13 pp. 

doi:10.3389/fcimb.2014.00103] 

Mills, J. N., T. L. Yates, J. E. Childs, R. R. Paramenter, T. G. Ksiazek, P. E. Rollin, and C. J. Peters.  1995.  

Guidelines for working with rodents potentially infected with hantavirus.  J. Mammal. 76: 716‐722. 

Nicholson, W. L., C. D. Paddock, L. Demma, M. Traeger, B. Johnson, J. Dickson, J. McQuiston, and D. 

Swerdlow.  2006.  Rocky Mountain spotted fever in Arizona: documentation of heavy environmental 

infestations of Rhipicephalus sanguineus at an endemic site.  N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1078: 338‐341.

Neito, N. C., W. T. Porter, J. C. Wachara, T. J. Lowrey, L. Martin, P. J. Motyka, and D. J. Salkeld.  2018.  

Using citizen science to describe the prevalence and distribution of tick bite and exposure to tick‐borne 

diseases in the United States.  PLoS One 13 (7): e0199644. [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199644] 

Newman, B. C., W. B. Sutton, Y. Wang, C. J. Schweitzer, A. C. Moncayo, and B. T. Miller.  2019.  A 

standardized method for the construction of a tick drag/flag sampling approach and evaluation of sampling 

efficacy.  Exp. Appl. Acarol. 79 (3‐4): 433‐446. 

Padgett, K. A., D. Bonilla, M. E. Eremeeva, C. Glaser, R. S. Lane, C. C. Porse, M. B. Castro, S. Messenger, A. 

Espinosa, J. Hacker, A. Kjemtrup, B. Ryan, J. J. Scott, R. Hu, M. H. Yoshimizu, G. A. Dasch, and V. Kramer.  

2016.  The eco‐epidemiology of Pacific Coast tick fever in California.  PLOS Neglected Trop. Dis. 10: 

e0005020.  [doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005020] 

Pepin, K. M., R. J. Eisen, P. S. Mead, J. Piesman, D. Fish, A. G. Hoen, A. G. Barbour, S. Hamer, and M. A. 

Diuk‐Wasser. 2012. Geographic variation in the relationship between human Lyme disease incidence and 

density of infected host‐seeking Ixodes scapularis nymphs in the Eastern United States. Am. J. Trop. Med. 

Hyg. 86: 1062‐1071. 

Peterson, A. T.  2010.  The critical role of permanent voucher specimens of hosts and vectors in public 

health and epidemiology.  Emerging Infect. Dis. 16: 341‐342. 

Petersen, J. M., P. S. Mead, and M. E. Schriefer.  2009.  Francisella tularensis: an arthropod‐borne 

pathogen.  Vet. Res. 40: 07. 9 pp.  [doi:10.1051/vetres.2008045] 

Petry, W. K., S. A. Fore, L. J. Fielden, H‐J. Kim.  2010.  A quantitative comparison of two sample methods 

for collecting Amblyomma americanum and Dermacentor variabilis (Acari: Ixodidae) in Missouri.  Exp. Appl. 

Acarol. 52: 427‐438.

Portillo, A., R. de Souza, S. Santibanez, A. Duarte, S. Edouard, I. P. Fonseca, C. Marques, M. Novakova, A. 

M. Palomar, M. Santos, C. Silaghi, L. Tomassone, S. Zuquete, and J. A. Oteo.  2017.  Guidelines for the 

detection of Rickettsia spp.  Vector‐Borne Zoonotic Dis. 17: 23‐32. 

Richards, S. L., R. Langley, C. S. Apperson, and E. Watson.  2017.  Do tick attachment times vary between 

different tick‐pathogen systems.  Environments4: 37 (14 pp.) [doi:10.3390/environments4020037] 

Riemersma, K. K., and N. Komar.  2015.  Heartland virus neutralizing antibodies in vertebrate wildlife,

United States, 2009‐2014.  Emerging Infect. Dis. 21: 1830‐1833.
39 

Ronai, I., D. M. Tufts, and M. A. Diuk‐Wasser.  2019.  Aversion of the invasive Asian longhorned tick to the 

white‐footed mouse, the dominant reservoir of tick‐borne pathogens in the United States.  Unpublished 

manuscript.  [doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/826289] 

Rulison, E. I., I. Kuczaj, G. Pang, G. J. Hickling, J. L. Tsao, and H. S. Ginsberg.  2013.  Flagging versus 

dragging as sampling methods for nymphal Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae).  J. Vector Biol. 38: 163‐167.

Rynkiewicz, E., and K. Clay.  2014.  Tick community composition in Midwestern US habitats in relation to 

sampling method and environmental conditions.  Exp. Appl. Acarol. 64: 109‐119.   

Santibanez, S., A. Portillo, P. Santibanez, A. M. Palomar, and J. A. Oteo.  2013.  Usefulness of rickettsial 

PCR assays for the molecular diagnosis of human rickettsioses.  Enferm Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 31: 283=‐

288.

Savage, H. M., K. L. Burkhalter, M. S. Godsey, N. A. Panella, D. C. Ashley, W. L. Nicholson, and A. J. 

Lambert.  2017.  Bourbon virus in field‐collected ticks, Missouri, USA.  Emerging Infect Dis. 23: 2017‐2022. 

Savage, H.M., M. S. Godsey, Jr., N. A. Panella, K. L. Burkhalter, D. C. Ashley, R. R. Lash, B. Ramsay, T. 

Patterson, and W. L. Nicholson.  2016.  Surveillance for Heartland virus (Bunyaviridae:  Phlebovirus) in 

Missouri during 2013:  First detection of virus in adults of Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae).  J. 

Med. Entomol. 53: 607‐612. 

Savage, H. M., M. S. Godsey, Jr., A. Lambert, N. A. Panella, K. L. Burkhalter, J. R. Harmon, R. R. Lash, D. C. 

Ashley, and W. L. Nicholson.  2013.  First detection of Heartland virus (Bunyaviridae: Phlebovirus) in field 

collected arthropods.  Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 89 (3): 445‐452. 

Schultze, T. L., R. A. Jordan, and M. C. Dolan.  2011.  Experimental use of two standard tick collection 

methods to evaluate the relative effectiveness of several plant‐derived and synthetic repellents against 

Ixodes scapularis and Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) J. Econ. Entomol. 104: 2062‐2067.

Shen, Z., M. Z. Zhang, R. W. Stich, W. J. Mitchell, and S. Zhang.  2018.  Development of a tick‐borne 

pathogen QPCR panel for detection of Anaplasma, Ehrlichia, Rickettsia, and Lyme disease Borrelia in 

animals.  J. Microbiol. Meth. 151: 83‐89. 

Siegel, J. P., U. Kitron, and J. K. Bouseman.  1991.  Spatial and temporal distribution of Ixodes dammini

(Acari: Ixodidae) in a northwestern Illinois State Park.  J. Med. Entomol. 28: 101‐104. 

Smith, T. A.  1990.  A modified tick flag.  Bull. Soc. Vector Ecol. 15: 197‐198.

Solberg, V. B., K. Neidhardt, M. R. Sardelis, C. Hildebrandt, F. J. Hoffmann, and <. R. Boobar.  1992.  

Quantitative evaluation of sampling methods for Ixodes dammini and Amblyomma americanum (Acari: 

Ixodidae).  J. Med. Entomol. 29: 451‐456.

Stafford, K. C., III, G. Molaei, E. A. H. Little, C. D. Paddock, S. E. Karpathy, and A. M. Labonte. 2018. 

Distribution and establishment of the lone star tick in Connecticut and implications for range expansion 

and public health. J. Med. Entomol. 55: 1561–1568. 

Stanley, H. M., S. L. Ford, A. N. Snellgrove, K. Hartzer, E. B. Smith, I. Krapiunaya, and M. L. Levin.  2020.  

The ability of the invasive Asian longhorned tick Haemaphysalis longicornis (Acari: Ixodidae) to acquire and 

transmit Rickettsia rickettsii (Rickettsiales: Rickettsiaceae), the agent of Rocky Mountain spotted fever, 

under laboratory conditions.  J. Med. Entomol. (accepted March 2020) 
40 

Stein, K. J., M. Waterman, and J. L. Waldon.  2008.  The effects of vegetation density and habitat 

disturbance on the spatial distribution of ixodid ticks (Acari: Ixodidae).  Geospatial Health 2: 241‐252.

Stenos, J., S. R. Graves, and N. B. Unsworth.  2005.  A highly sensitive and specific real‐time PCR assay for 

the detection of spotted fever and typhus group rickettsiae.  Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 73: 1083‐1085.

Stjernberg, L., and J. Berglund.  2005.  Detecting ticks on light versus dark clothing.  Scand. J. Infect. Dis 37: 

361‐364.

Stromdahl, E. Y., and G. J. Hickling. 2012. Beyond Lyme: aetiology of tick‐borne human diseases with 

emphasis on the south‐eastern United States. Zoonoses Publ. Hlth. 59 Suppl 2: 48‐64. 

Stromdahl, E. Y., S. R. Evans, J. J. O’Brien, and A. G. Gutierrez.  2001.  Prevalence of infection in ticks 

submitted to the human tick test kit program of the U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion and 

Preventive Medicine.  J. Med. Entomol. 38: 67‐74. 

Tack, W., M. Madder, P. De Frenne, M. Vanhellemont, R. Gruwez, and K. Verheyen.  2011.  The effects of 

sampling method and vegetation type on the estimated abundance of Ixodes ricinus ticks in forests.  Exp. 

Appl. Acarol. 54: 285‐292.

Takkeklint‐Eisen, L., and R. S. Lane.  2000.  Efficacy of drag sampling for estimating population sizes of 

Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae) nymphs in leaf litter.  J. Med. Entomol. 37: 484‐487.

Trout Fryxell, R. T., and J. T. Vogt.  2019.  Collaborative‐tick surveillance works: an academic and 

government partnership for tick surveillance in the southeastern United States (Acari: Ixodidae).  J. Med. 

Entomol.  56: 1411–1419. 

Vassallo, M., B. Pichon, J. Cabaret, C. Figureau, and C. Perez‐Eid.  2000.  Methodology for sampling 

questing nymphs of Ixodes ricinus (Acari: Ixodidae), the principal vector of Lyme disease in Europe.  J. Med. 

Entomol. 37: 335‐339.  [evaluated cloth type] 

Vaughn, M. F., S. W. Funkhouser, F‐C. Lin, J. Fine, J. J. Juliano, C. S. Apperson, S. R. Meshnick.  2014.  

Long‐lasting Permethrin impregnated uniforms: a randomized‐controlled trial for tick bite prevention.  Am. 

J. Prev. Med. 46: 473‐480. 

Walker, K., H. Yaglom, D. H. Gouge, M. Brophy, M. Casal, and V. Ortiz Encinas.  2018.  The brown dog tick 

and epidemic Rocky Mountain spotted fever in Arizona and northwestern Mexico.  Publ.No. az1769.  

University of Arizona Cooperative Extension.  11 pp. [extension.arizona.edu/pubs/az1769‐2018.pdf] 

Wilson, J. G., D. R. Kinzer, J. R. Sauer, and J. A. Hair. 1972. Chemo‐attraction in the lone star tick (Acarina: 

Ixodidae). I. Response of different developmental stages to carbon dioxide administered via traps. J. Med. 

Entomol. 9: 245‐252. 

   
41 

General Guidance for Surveillance

Armed Forces Pest Management Board.  2002.  Guide to pest surveillance during contingency operations.  

Tech. Guide No. 43.  Defense Pest Management Information Analysis Center, Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center: Washington, D.C. 145 pp. 

Armed Forces Pest Management Board.  1998.  Tick‐borne diseases: Vector surveillance and control.  

Tech. Guide No. 26.  Armed Forces Pest Management Board, Information Services Division: Fort Detrick 

Forest Glen Annex: Silver Springs, Md. 45 pp. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  2018.  Surveillance for Ixodes scapularis and pathogens 

found in this tick species in the United States.  [www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance] 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  2018.  Surveillance for Ixodes pacificus and pathogens found 

in this tick species in the United States.  [www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance] 

Cohnstaedt, L. W., K. Rochon, A. J. Duehl, J. F. Anderson, R. Barrera, N‐Y. Su, A. C. Gerry, P. J. Obenauer, 

J. F. Campbell, T. J. Lysyk, and S. A. Allan.  2012.  Arthropod surveillance programs: basic components, 

strategies, and analysis.  J. Med. Entomol. 105: 135‐149. 

Department of the Army.  1992.  Ticks, pp. 5‐1 – 5‐9.  In:  Occupational and environmental health pest 

surveillance.  U. S. Army Headquarters, Tech. Bull. TB MED 561.

Estrada‐Pena, A., J. S. Gray, O. Kahl, R. S. Lane, and A. M. Nijhol.  2013.  Research on the ecology of ticks 

and tick‐borne pathogens—methodological principles and caveats.  Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 3: 165‐

176. [doi:10.3389/fcimb.2013.00029]

Gladney, W. J.  1978.  Ticks (Acarina, Argasidae and Ixodidae), pp. 102‐113.  In:  Bram, R. A., ed.  

Surveillance and collection of arthropods of veterinary importance.  U. S. Dept. Agric. Ag. Handbook No. 

518. 

Madder, M., I. Horak, and H. Stoltsz.  2013.  Tick surveillance.  African Veterinary Information Portal.  

Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria: Pretoria, South Africa.  16 pp. 

[www.afrivip.org/sites/default/files/surveillance_complete_0.pdf]

Moore, C. G., and K. L. Gage.  2005.  Surveillance of vector‐borne diseases, pp. 257‐273.  In:  Marquardt, 

W. C., ed.  Biology of disease vectors, 2nd ed.  Elsevier/Academic Press:  New York, N.Y.

Nusser, S. M., W. R. Clark, D. L. Otis, and L. Huang.  2008.  Sampling considerations for disease 

surveillance in wildlife populations.  J. Wildl. Mgmt. 72: 52‐60.  [doi:10.2193/2007‐317]

Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario)  2015.  Active tick dragging: 

standard operating procedure.  Queen’s Printer for Ontario: Toronto, Ontario.

Petney, T. N., M. P. Pfaffle, H. Sprong, A. D. Mihalca, and A. Estrada‐Pena.  2018.  How to collect ticks and 

interpret these collections, pp. 5‐10.  In:  Estrada‐Pena, A., A. D. Milhaca, and T. N. Petney, eds.  Ticks of 

Europe and North Africa: a guide to species identification.  Springer:  New York, N.Y. 404 pp. 

Sonenshine, D. E.  1993.  Biology of Ticks, vol. 2.  Oxford University Press: New York, N. Y. [pp. 397‐407]
42 

Springer, Y. P., D. Hockman, P. T J Johnson, et al.  2016.  Tick‐, mosquito‐, and rodent‐borne parasite 

sampling designs for the National Ecological Observatory Network (Special feature: NEON design).  

Ecosphere 7 (5): e01271.  [doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1271] 

Suthurst, R. W., R. Wharton, and K. B. W. Utech.  1978.  Guide to studies on tick ecology.  Division of 

Entomology Technical Paper No. 14.  Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization 

(CSIRO), Melbourne, Australia.  59 pp. 

USDA Veterinary Services.  2018.  Tick surveillance, collection, and submission of suspected exotic ticks.  

VS Guidance 7000.1.  United States Department of Agriculture, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. 3 pp. 

Wilson, M. L.  1994.  Population ecology of tick vectors: interaction, measurement, and analysis, pp. 20‐44.  

In:  Sonenshine, D. E., and T. N. Mather, eds.  Ecological dynamics of tick‐borne zoonoses.  Oxford Univ. 

Press: New York, N.Y. 

   
43 

Additional Resources 

Tick Surveillance and ArboNET Websites: 

www.cdc.gov/ticks/surveillance/  

wwwn.cdc.gov/arbonet/  

United States National Tick Collection (USNTC): 

General website 

https://cosm.georgiasouthern.edu/usntc/

Center of Excellence Tick Workshop 2020 

https://cosm.georgiasouthern.edu/usntc/center‐of‐excellence‐tick‐workshop‐2020/
44 

Supplemental Material 

How to make a tick drag

Blanket‐style drag  

Supplies  

1‐1/2 yd. rubberized cotton flannel sheeting, 45” wide  

2 ‐ zinc‐plated screw eyes, size #12  

3 ‐ zinc‐plated cut washers, 2” outer diameter, 3/4” inner diameter   

1 ‐ length of braided polyester clothesline, 3/16” thick  

1 ‐ dowel, 3/4” in diameter, 48” long  

Heavy‐duty thread   

Heavy‐duty sewing machine   

20 small lead sinkers, used for weighting fishing lines, 1⁄4 oz. size  

  

Sewing instructions  

For each flag:  

Step 1: Preparing the materials 

From the rubberized cotton flannel material, cut:  

a. One (1) – 39.5” x 36” rectangle for the main panel of the tick drag.   

b. One (1) – 39.5” x 4” strip for the pocket that will hold the washers.  

Step 2: Sewing the loop for the dowel 

a. Laying the main panel flat so that it measures 39.5” from left to right, fold the top 

of the panel down approximately 3” toward the front of the panel and pin or clip in place. 

(Diagram A)  

b. Sew along the bottom edge of the fabric, leaving the two sides open to form a 

“loop” for the dowel.  

(Diagram B)  

Step 3 (flat drag): Adding the weights 

a. Flip the panel over so that the seam from Step 2 is facing down. The panel should 

still be situated so that the loop is across the top of the panel.  
45 

b. Next, pin or clip the 39.5” x 4” rectangle onto the bottom of the panel so that the 

long edges align. Sew the two pieces together along the bottom edge, using a generous 

seam allowance. (Diagram C)  

c. Flip the panel again so that the seam from Step 2 is again facing up. Turn the 39.5” 

x 4” strip from Step 3b to the front of the panel and pin or clip in place. (Diagram D)  

d. Following the diagram, sew the strip in place, adding the three washers as you 

work. (Diagram E)  

Step 4: Completing the drag 

a. Affix one screw eye to each end of the dowel, and thread the dowel through the 

dowel loop from Step 2. 

b. Measure and cut a length of braided cord and knot each end through the screw 

eyes to make the drag handle. The length of cord should be long enough for the front of 

the drag to reach the ground as the collector pulls it along the vegetation.  

       
46 

Sewing diagrams  

  

  

  

     

   
47 

Modified drag with “fingers”  

Supplies  

1‐1/2 yd. rubberized cotton flannel sheeting, 36” wide  

2 ‐ zinc‐plated screw eyes, size #12  

3 ‐ zinc‐plated cut washers, 2” outer diameter, 3/4” inner diameter   

1 ‐ length of braided polyester clothesline, 3/16” thick  

1 ‐ dowel, 3/4” in diameter, 48” long  

20 ‐ small lead sinkers, 1⁄4 oz. weight  

Heavy‐duty thread   

Heavy‐duty sewing machine   

Sewing instructions 

From the rubberized cotton flannel material, cut:  

a. One (1) – 39.5” x 23” rectangle for the main panel of the tick drag.   

b. Ten (10) – 23” x 2” strips for the fingers that will hold the lead weights.  

Step 2: Sewing the loop for the dowel 

a. Laying the main panel flat so that it measures 39.5” from left to right, fold the top 

of the panel down approximately 3” toward the front of the panel and pin or clip in place. 

(Diagram A)  

b. Sew along the bottom edge of the fabric, leaving the two sides open to form a 

“loop” for the dowel. (Diagram B)  

Step 3 (finger drag): Adding the weights 

a. Pin or clip the ten 23” x 2” fabric strips at even distances across the bottom of the 

rectangular piece so that each one overlaps the larger piece by approximately 1”.   

b. Sew a double line of stitches across all ten fingers, securing them to the back of 

the drag. (Diagram C)  

c. Fold approximately 2” of the bottom of each strip over and sew along two edges 

to form a pocket with an open side. (Diagram D)  

d. Insert two of the lead sinkers into this pocket and continue sewing the third side of 

the pocket to close. Repeat for all ten fingers. (Diagram D)  

Step 4: Completing the drag 

a. Affix one screw eye to each end of the dowel, and thread the dowel through the 

dowel loop from Step 2. 
48 

b. Measure and cut a length of braided cord, and knot each end through the screw 

eyes to make the drag handle. The length of cord should be long enough for the front of 

the drag to reach the ground as the collector pulls it along the vegetation.  

Sewing diagrams 

   
49 

How to make a tick flag 

Materials: 

•  1” diameter by 60” long wooden broomstick 

•  Heavy duty stapler  

•  Heavy duty 3/8” staples 

•  Crib Cloth or flannel (approx. 27in x 36in) 

•  Hammer  

Instructions: 

1.  Cut your cloth material to the appropriate size (sewing or hemming will not be required if 

the laminated fabric is used) 

2.  Staple the shorter edge of the cloth to broom stick at one end along the whole edge of the 

cloth 

3.  Hammer staples down if needed so they are flat on the broomstick 

4.  Wrap cloth around broomstick until the cloth overlaps, staple again beside the previous 

layer’s staples 

5.  Hammer staples down if needed so they are flat on the broomstick 

Assembly diagram: 
50 

How to construct a tick drag‐flag

Reference:  Newman, B. C., W. B. Sutton, Y. Wang, C. J. Schweitzer, A. C. Moncayo, and B. T. Miller.  2019.  

A standardized method for the construction of a tick drag/flag sampling approach and evaluation of 

sampling efficacy.  Exp. Appl. Acarol. 79 (3‐4): 433‐446. 

Supplies (estimated prices as of 2019): 

1. Cotton white flannel fabric (2 in quantity, $3.59/ yard), or cotton bleached white muslin fabric (2 

in quantity) 

2. diamond braided rope bright color (4.7 mm x 22.8 m) 

3. wood round dowel (pine, 2.2225 cm x 1.2192 m) 

4. white industrial strength Velcro (4.57 m x 5.08 cm) 

5. all‐purpose stainless‐steel blade scissors (20.3 cm)  

* Prior to construction of the tick drag‐flag, we cut sampling fabric into four 1 x 1 m square panels (two 

cotton flannel and two cotton muslin). 

* Of note, sewing was completed by a professional seamstress ($9.00 per panel) as it was more cost‐

effective than purchasing necessary equipment (e.g., sewing machine) to ensure fabric panels were sewn 

in such a manner as to remain durable throughout the project. A double fold hem technique was used to 

sew fabric along all four edges. 

Instructions for assembly: 

1. Gather all supplies. 

2. Align fabric panel with a wood dowel such that 4 cm and 18 cm of space are left between 

ends of dowel and fabric. To ensure precision, we encourage marking the wood dowel at 4 cm and 

18 cm from each end. 
51 

3. Align Velcro with fabric and markings on dowel ~2cm past 18 cm marking to ensure 

enough space is left for the adhesive side of Velcro to make complete contact with the entire edge 

of fabric and cut Velcro to length. 

4. Remove plastic film lining the loop side of the Velcro and carefully attach to the dowel 

making sure no wrinkles or pockets form. As stated in the previous step, an extra 2 cm is necessary 

because fabric must be taut when attaching to the adhesive of the hook side of the Velcro. 

5. Combine dowel and fabric panel ensuring that both hook and loop sides of Velcro adhere. 

This completes the necessary steps to assemble a 1 x 1 m tick flag. The larger space left on the 

dowel (~18 cm) will serve as the handle in which to perform tick sampling via flagging technique. 
52 
53 

6. Cut diamond braided rope bright color to ~2 m and tie each loose end of rope to wood dowel. 

This completes the necessary steps to assemble a 1 x 1 m tick drag. 
54